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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 got this account with the NVG computer club back in 
199something, I've been reading mail with (al)pine on one of NVG's server, 
with the default inbox, which has for decades been NFS-mounted from the 
mail server (which is not really encouraged for ordinary logins.)


However, last autumn (iirc) they upgraded Fedora on the login server I 
generally use, which I believe introduced a different NFS client behavior, 
and after that alpine panics with a locking error when new email arrives.


The NVG admin I talked to couldn't quite make heads or tails of how to fix 
the NFS, but suggested I use one of NVGs Debian servers instead, which 
didn't seem to have the bug.


Because *those* servers had previously given me problems with IRC+tmux, 
which is the *other* main thing I use the login server for, I didn't 
actually change my main login server (I still haven't), but instead 
changed my tmux pine window to ssh to another server and start alpine 
there.


That worked for months. But just a week or so ago, they upgraded the 
Debian servers so they too got the bug.


So as a new desperate idea, I tried to just change the ssh to go to the 
mail server, where the inbox is obviously _not_ NFS mounted.


Unfortunately, as I said it's not really meant for general login, so while 
it *seemed* to work for a few minutes, it soon turned out to have strange 
issues with pine's character and terminal handling, which is what you saw.


I discovered that the mail server has a bitrotted version of pine (not 
even alpine, although I didn't notice that at first because pine is just 
another name for alpine on the other servers).


So now I finally set alpine up to use IMAP for the inbox instead.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

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 Steele wrote:
> > > I vote conditionally:
> > > If G¢s vote evaluates to FOR, AGAINST. Otherwise FOR.
> > > 
> > > [For the record, I support this proposal and will probably change my vote
> > > later]
> 
> Heh I've been wondering about someone doing that kind of thing.

It's happened randomly/accidentally a couple times I think.  But no one's 
been able (yet) to use "my conditional vote can make your conditional
vote invalid" for any practical scam.  Still, taking away that possibility
was a reason for my proto.

> Ørjan.
You're doing this just to vex me right?

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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 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 Steele wrote:
 I vote conditionally:
 If G¢s vote evaluates to FOR, AGAINST. Otherwise FOR.
 
 [For the record, I support this proposal and will probably change my vote 
 later]
>> Heh I've been wondering about someone doing that kind of thing.
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.

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

[ATMunn]

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, 27 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I vote conditionally:
If G¢s vote evaluates to FOR, AGAINST. Otherwise FOR.

[For the record, I support this proposal and will probably change my 
vote later]


Heh I've been wondering about someone doing that kind of thing.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

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 Steele wrote:

I vote conditionally:
If G¢s vote evaluates to FOR, AGAINST. Otherwise FOR.

[For the record, I support this proposal and will probably change my 
vote later]


Heh I've been wondering about someone doing that kind of thing.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Kerim Aydin]

PRESENT doesn't evaluate to FOR, so no.

My idea is that if 4 people are interested enough in the subgame (actively
voting FOR rather than a meh 'PRESENT'), they should be allowed to play it,
even if there's some votes against it.  If my conditional is a decider this
essentially it makes it 'with 3 support'.  Fewer than that and I don't think
it has critical mass of interest.  In retrospect I should have voted this
way with my dumb zombie game, too.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> Does that conditional vote include PRESENT votes?
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 9:46 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >
> > ---
> > > 8031*  [1]  2.0  Nomicbots Minigame  CuddleBeam  1 Paper
> >
> > I vote conditionally:
> > If there are 4 or more valid ballots cast on 8031 (other than this one)
> > that
> > evaluate to FOR at the end of the voting period, FOR.  Otherwise AGAINST.
> >
> > -G.
> >
> >
> >
>

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

[Kenyon Prater]

Does that conditional vote include PRESENT votes?

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018, 9:46 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> ---
> > 8031*  [1]  2.0  Nomicbots Minigame  CuddleBeam  1 Paper
>
> I vote conditionally:
> If there are 4 or more valid ballots cast on 8031 (other than this one)
> that
> evaluate to FOR at the end of the voting period, FOR.  Otherwise AGAINST.
>
> -G.
>
>
>