Wooble wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> It strikes me that when an officer ends up unresigned and inactive, the
>> office gets stuck. Is this right currently? Should we amend deputisation
>> to allow for inactive offices, not just vacant? (and are there other pla
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ah yes. I don't promise to get caught up for a few days, but I assume the
> office of Herald (and will try). I think Herald work is a little behind,
> if there are any pressing tasks someone wants to bring to my attention,
> I'll focus on thos
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> When an officer becomes inactive, all of eir offices become Assumed.
> Anyone can assume the office, and even immediately resign it if it
> seems likely that things will get done by deputization more
> efficiently when the office is empty.
F
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It strikes me that when an officer ends up unresigned and inactive, the
> office gets stuck. Is this right currently? Should we amend deputisation
> to allow for inactive offices, not just vacant? (and are there other places
> to add same, e
4 matches
Mail list logo
