DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6724 - 6727
On 05/24/2010 11:54 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: CoE: When Wooble voted for these proposals other than 6724, e had two Rests and was Red, and the decisions were Purple. Therefore e had a voting limit of 0. Since e did not specify a number of ballots to cast, per Rule 2280, e cast 0 votes. Therefore Proposal 6727 was adopted. -coppro Erg, nevermind; I didn't realize e had just become Red; I thought that was from the previous month. CoE withdrawn, if I could. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6724 - 6727
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: CFJ: If Wooble had been Red when e attempted to vote on the decision whether to adopt Proposal 6727, then eir vote would have been ineffective as of the end of the voting period. I've been waiting for this one to come up. Regardless of the judgement this is prime place for a legislative clarification. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6724 - 6727
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I've been waiting for this one to come up. Regardless of the judgement this is prime place for a legislative clarification. -G. Rule 2127 only applies to the option selected by a particular ballot, so to allow for an indefinite increase in voting limit in the future you'd have to cast an infinite number of conditional ballots; since that's impossible, I think a much more plausible interpretation is that it's the voting limit at the time. (When I wrote the rule text, I considered specifying that it equals 1,000 votes or something like that, but decided that was too ugly and left it as is; I suppose a better solution would be allowing conditional votes to specify a conditional number, although that has the side-effect of allowing votes of the form AGAINST if it would reach quorum even without this vote, no vote otherwise, which probably aren't possible right now..)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6724 - 6727
On Tue, 25 May 2010, comex wrote: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I've been waiting for this one to come up. Regardless of the judgement this is prime place for a legislative clarification. -G. (When I wrote the rule text, I considered specifying that it equals 1,000 votes or something like that... Huh. I just noticed that saying I vote AGAINST. I vote AGAINST. is really voting twice your voting limit. Which means saying I vote AGAINST twice is different than saying I vote 2xAGAINST. Except that saying I vote 2xAGAINST is supposedly an unofficial administrative convenience for saying I vote AGAINST. I vote AGAINST. Hmm. I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but the whole thing seems pretty ambiguous. -G.
