DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

Not a claim of error, yet, since I _think_ it’s inconsequential, but my weekly report presumed you had paid those 4 Shinies on the date of your message to the wrong forum because I missed that it was to -discussion. Does anyone feel strongly that this is worth correcting? Effective the

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

I still officially consider this proposal not to exist, its submission having been overly ambiguous. -Aris On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 1:47 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > TTttPF > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Fri, Apr 28,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

Public forum might help. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 4:28 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I hereby pay 4 shinies to pend this proposal. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

I hereby pay 4 shinies to pend this proposal. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its > passage would create

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 22:07 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Is it time to do away with the distinction? I appreciate the idea > that proposals should be submitted for consideration before they’re > submitted for voting, but with Agora this small, that appears to > happen through proto-proposals,

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: To-Do List

On Apr 27, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I submit the following proposal if it has no formatting errors and its > passage would create two new rules: > > {{{ > Title: Agora's To-Do List > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: