On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
I'm just going to make sure my vote actually changes.
If, despite the aforementioned October 19 post, my vote on proposals
7922-7929 has not changed, I vote as follows:
Fortunately for you the judgement was that the previous one worked,
because I don't
True, I suppose. I have a feeling "can by regulation" would probably
allow regulations either by announcement or with notice, but that's
not the end of the world.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 00:16 -0700, Aris
On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 00:16 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Again, voting for both this and contracts is a rather bad idea,
> because they conflict. This removes regulations, which contracts
> uses.
The contracts proposal doesn't /need/ regulations for anything
fundamental, though. It'd be easy
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:22 AM, ATMunn . wrote:
> I'm just going to make sure my vote actually changes.
>
> If, despite the aforementioned October 19 post, my vote on proposals
> 7922-7929 has not changed, I vote as follows:
...
> 7925: FOR
Again, voting for both this
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> (Also I would like to remind G. of my other two outstanding CFJs, in a message
> with a perhaps confusing subject starting "BUS: DIS: CFJ".)
I've been trying out batch-assigning once a week and those were 5 days
ago - if the delays are being too
That's a good point you have there. I blame Gmail.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> I CFJ on
>
> In a below quoted message of 19 October, ATMunn succeeded in changing
> eir votes.
>
> Argument: The plain text version of the message has
6 matches
Mail list logo