Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Revert "There is just one vote in elections, which are STV" #70

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 28, 2017

Conversation

chaals
Copy link
Contributor

@chaals chaals commented Aug 28, 2017

Reverts #69

Misunderstanding of the meeting (I had thought we would make the change that made the document consistent, and raise the issue to the AC).

@chaals chaals merged commit 325c3b6 into gh-pages Aug 28, 2017
@chaals chaals deleted the revert-69-Just-one-vote-60 branch August 28, 2017 18:14
@michaelchampion
Copy link

Hmm, I might have said I could live with that, if so sorry for reacting from my mobile :-)

But wouldn't it be appropriate to flag it somehow in the text as needing AC discussion?

@chaals
Copy link
Contributor Author

chaals commented Aug 30, 2017

wouldn't it be appropriate to flag it somehow in the text as needing AC discussion

IMHO No. We don't flag issues within the text in general when we propose the document for AC review, we instead provide a commentary and let them see issues here. Your mileage may vary with editors...

chaals added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 30, 2017
Remove sentence that was apparently inconsistent and incoherent. See also #69, #70, and the actual issue #60.
@frivoal frivoal added Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion DoC This has been referenced from a Disposition of Comments (or predates the use of DoCs) labels Dec 9, 2018
@frivoal frivoal added this to the Process 2018 milestone Feb 19, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Closed: Accepted The issue has been addressed, though not necessarily based on the initial suggestion DoC This has been referenced from a Disposition of Comments (or predates the use of DoCs)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants