On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 1:51 AM, omd wrote:
>> 7649 scshunt 2 I always thought these already ratifie
> I wrote this proposal, not scshunt; I don't think this affects
> validity of distribution.
Unfortunately it does, sigh. It's an essential parameter so it must be
correct. Re
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> We used to have a class of switches that didn't need reporting on,
> to stop it being technically illegal not to report the judgement of
> every old CFJ, or the AI of every old proposal, or the like, in such
> cases where they happened to be imp
On Tue, 13/5/14, omd wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Alex Smith
> wrote:
> >> 7649 scshunt 2 I always thought these already ratifie
> > AGAINST; this doesn't allow for implicit switches, and so I think it
> > might cause all the old CFJs to spontaneously unjudge the
On Tue, 13 May 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
> On 13 May 2014 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I vote: > 7644 Yally 1 Make the Birthday Holiday
> line up with
> FIR
>
>
> What's this do?
Oh, haha, grow needles maybe? Genuine typo but I'm leaving it.
On 2014-05-13 13:44, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 13 May 2014 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I vote:
7644 Yally1 Make the Birthday Holiday line up
with
FIR
What's this do?
The FLR has
{{{
[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of
"AGAINST", not
On 13 May 2014 17:54, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I vote:
> > 7644 Yally1 Make the Birthday Holiday line up
> with
> FIR
What's this do?
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 7649 scshunt 2 I always thought these already ratifie
> AGAINST; this doesn't allow for implicit switches, and so I think it
> might cause all the old CFJs to spontaneously unjudge themselves, or
> something like that
Swit
On Tue, 13 May 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
> >>> 7656 scshunt 1 Clairty
> >> AGAINST until precedent is cleared up. "increase" should be replaced by
> >> simply "change" if its meant to go both directions.
> >
> > If the pr
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> 7656 scshunt 1 Clairty
>> AGAINST until precedent is cleared up. "increase" should be replaced by
>> simply "change" if its meant to go both directions.
>
> If the precedent is that you can't increase by a negative value,
9 matches
Mail list logo
