On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2280 (Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots
>>> equal to eir voting limit on that decision" with "14 ballots".
>>
>>
>> 14? I would understand 12, but...
>
> http://wiki.cepheid.org/index.php/14
Pfft, how about 106?
omd wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
(Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots equal to eir voting
limit on that decision" with "one hundred ballots".
>>
>> Oh, right.
>>
>> Pro
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
>>> (Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots equal to eir voting
>>> limit on that decision" with "one hundred ballots".
>
> Oh, right.
>
> Proposal: Implicit Exce
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Why not propose my not-proposal of a week ago?
>
> Which one was that?
This:
> Since the current policy adds unnecessary complexity, amend Rule 2280
> (Implicit Votes) by replacing "a number of ballots equal to eir voting
> limit on that decis
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> One of the great things of being deregistered is not being an eligible
>>> voter, but I'll say that I'm strongly AGAINST.
>>> Post-end-of-voting-period voting limit manipulations are fun.
>>
>> Oh, sure, try being Assessor (for mor
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> One of the great things of being deregistered is not being an eligible
>> voter, but I'll say that I'm strongly AGAINST.
>> Post-end-of-voting-period voting limit manipulations are fun.
>
> Oh, sure, try being Assessor (for more than one message)
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
with "end of the voting period".
>>
>> No, it takes away precisely that power. Â The advantage to the Assessor
>> is that it eases bookkeeping (once the
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
>>> with "end of the voting period".
>
> No, it takes away precisely that power. The advantage to the Assessor
> is that it eases bookkeeping (once the Herald reports the
Wooble wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Proposal: Moving targets are hard
>> (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
>>
>> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
>> with "end of the voting period".
>
> against; gives the Assessor way
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proposal: Moving targets are hard
> (AI = 2, II = 1, distributable via fee)
>
> Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing "resolution"
> with "end of the voting period".
against; gives the Assessor way too much power. although
Proposal 6915 (Ordinary, AI=2.0, Interest=0) by omd
Psychohistorical accuracy
Amend Rule 2255 (The Court) by replacing "Head Gardener" with "Chief
Gardener".
No, it didn't.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 9, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Yally wrote:
>
>> If possible, I rubberstamp propos
Wooble wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
>> If possible, I rubberstamp proposals 6944, 6945, and 6946 and veto
>> proposal 6947.
>
> If possible, I rubberstamp all 4 of them.
This is possible iff ais523's recent Bestowing Favors was effective
(it might not have b
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:
> I vote FOR each of these proposals a number of times equal to my
> voting limit (which is zero I assume? Haven't finished reading the
> current ruleset yet)
It should be 2, unless you've somehow managed to move way up the List.
13 matches
Mail list logo
