Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8031

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Ã?rjan Johansen wrote: Ã?rjan. You're doing this just to vex me right? *MWAHAHAHA* No, actually it was the result of a desperate attempt not to change (much) how I read email. I'm a duct tape kind of person... Ever since I

Re: DIS: proto: sequential conditionality

Great proposal! A few minor points: You might want to define whether the other conditional votes are treated as PRESENT, or as not having a value at all yet. The later requires a special case, but probably has the most sensible behavior. I might be inclined to use this only as a rule for how to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8031

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I change my vote on 8031 to: > > If there are 4 or more valid unconditional FOR ballots cast on 8031 at > > the end of the voting period, FOR. Otherwise AGAINST. > > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8031

Text encoding issues, most likely. Gaelan > On Mar 29, 2018, at 6:20 AM, ATMunn wrote: > > What happened to your name? Ørjan Johansen? > > On 3/28/2018 7:38 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> I change my vote on 8031 to: >>> If

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8031

What happened to your name? Ørjan Johansen? On 3/28/2018 7:38 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: I change my vote on 8031 to: If there are 4 or more valid unconditional FOR ballots cast on 8031 at the end of the voting period, FOR.  Otherwise AGAINST. On Tue,