The one question I have is—how is the “reiteration” definition consistent
with the interpretation of “clear” set forth in the recent CFJ on the
attempted declaration of apathy?
I think the “reiterate” language involves indirection that is similar to
the indirection involved in the apathy
I've considered it more since our last conversation, and I agree that it
definitely meets reasonable effort standards whenever the previous vote was
reported in an assessor's results (which would be the case most times this
would be used), so I don't think I'd opine against in on those grounds.
Basically, I just don't see anything that justifies such a harsh
viewpoint. There's a big difference between those examples and looking
up one vote on one decision, information available easily in the
resolution message. You'd basically be banning any conditional that
depends on anything a
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong personal opinion.
Whether or not I judge this, I'm open to discussion and changing my first
impression.
(Obviously I can't make you not object, but using "expressing an opinion"
as a reason
I will challenge/CoE the counting of any vote done in this matter.
It is wholly unreasonable (beyond the bounds of clarity) to require
persons to look back at past decisions to see what vote was cast.
(public voting should communicate not just with the assessor, but
with everyone).
On Sun, 23
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
[This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
which means
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
> > added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
> > which means that it's legal under past
On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
[This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that
requires em to retrieve it.]
The obvious
8 matches
Mail list logo
