Oh, yes, you're correct, actually. Thank you.
In that case the tally would look like this:
+----+
|8089|
+----------+----+
|Aris | FF |
|G. | P |
|Murphy | |
|Trigon | F |
|twg | F |
+----------+----+
|Kenyon | |
+----------+----+
|FOR | 4 |
|AGAINST | 0 |
|AI | 1.0|
|Ballots | 6 |
|Quorum | 7 |
|Resolved |F.Q.|
+----------+----+
8089 still fails quorum; quorum on 8090-8093 is still 4.
(Sorry, Murphy.)
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 9:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I would like to request that nobody CoE the resolution of proposal 8089,
> > because it wouldn't change the outcome of the decision and would have a
> > knock-on effect on this distribution's quorum which I would much rather
> > not have to think about. Older decision results have self-ratified already.
>
> Doesn't it still count towards quorum and quorum adjustments anyway? (not
> that I recommend a CoE either). I'm assuming "voted on" in R879 means
> casting a valid ballot, even if the ballot strength is 0?
