On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 01:34 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Your voting limit is 8.
> >>> Incorrect.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Rule .
> > Ru
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Psssht. What's the point of even having Rule ?
The prerogative is the only way to circumvent it; if you feel strongly
about the WEV not getting > 8 votes, propose powering up (Power
2.222 should do nicely), or spend notes to decreas
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Your voting limit is 8.
Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Rule .
>> Rule 2019 tak
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:17 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Your voting limit is 8.
>>> Incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Rule .
> Rule 2019 takes precedence.
>
Psssht. What's the point of even having Rule 222
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>> Your voting limit is 8.
>> Incorrect.
>>
>
> Rule .
Rule 2019 takes precedence.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>> Your voting limit is 8.
> Incorrect.
>
Rule .
Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Your voting limit is 8.
Incorrect.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I vote as follows on each of these decisions:
>> 6377 O 0 1.0 coppro inflation
> FOR x 12.
> I intend, with support, to make this proposal Democratic.
>
>> 6378 D 1 3.0 Murphy Changing votes
> FOR
>
>> 6379 D 2 3.0 allis
Yally wrote:
> 6383 O 1 1.0 Murphy Clarify conditional votes
> PRESENT * 3 [I'm not exactly sure what this proposal does other than
> just reword what is already there.]
It explicitly allows votes that depend on conditions with values
other than true/false, e.g. "I vote for the first
Wooble wrote:
> I rubberstamp the decisions to adopt proposals 6277, 6380, 6381, and
> 6383, to avoid ambiguity in the number of eligible voters to count
> toward quorum from propagating further.
Typo, surely you meant 6377.
10 matches
Mail list logo