| Jamie Dallaire on Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:31:23 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Tweak fix |
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > I approve all currently pending Tweaks. >>> >>> >> >> >> > > I meant: I Support all currently pending Tweaks. > > > Also, if we blew our one and only chance to activate a Tweak, is it >> still pending? (N/A for those that have been re-submitted) >> >> > > > Those within the rday time frame might be OK -- except if you interpret > "with support" to mean that the appropriate call for support had to be > specified with the original posting of intent, e.g. explicitely posting "I > intend with 5 support" instead of the default "with no objection" criteria. We never treat dependent actions as requiring that the mandatory support or objection be specified with the intent. ie. "I intend to activate this Tweak" is fine even though it doesn't mention that it requires no objection. That said I don't see how the tweaks can be activated on the rday-basis without the 5 support (which none got) anyway. _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss