On Feb 4, 2008 3:50 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Kelly wrote:
> >You know, I'm no longer convinced that that bug really needs a
> >solution. Dependent actions are meant to be quick and simple, not
> >precise, and a change that makes them simpler is a good thing.
>
> For a "with support" ("with 1 support"), it makes the difference between
> requiring two first-class persons in favour and one person being able
> to do it on eir own. That's too big a difference to gloss over.
To me the non-quick-and-simple part is the vote tally. If the tally
is incorrect, then the action doesn't go through, like the appeal I
forgot to initiate because I counted AGAINT as FOR (an equivalence
which I am determined to establish); if I want to appeal something,
it's not sufficient to go and post "I appeal this", I actually have to
remember to make the appeal if I'm first.
Just little annoyances, but they seem unnecessary. I'll vote for
anything that makes an incorrect tally a SHALL NOT rather than a
CANNOT.
