Think this is a bug?

[David Bovill]

During the founding vote,the text on the member page states:

Members

You can invite new founding members and re-issue invitations on this page.

Adding additional founding members on this page lets them view the draft constitution. Once everyone’s happy the group can hold the founding vote and form the Association. Bear in mind the law says an Association cannot be formed with fewer than three people.

However you can't actually invite new founding members, or re-issue invitations? A member made a typo while entering their email, and we needed to wait the3 days to hold the vote again - either being able to add a new founder and then delete the wrong address, or being able to edit the details and resend would have fixed this problem.  Either way the text is misleading?

[Chris Mear]

Hi David,

On 14 Dec 2012, at 11:59, David Bovill <da...@vaudevillecourt.tv> wrote:

During the founding vote,the text on the member page states:

Members

You can invite new founding members and re-issue invitations on this page.

Adding additional founding members on this page lets them view the draft constitution. Once everyone’s happy the group can hold the founding vote and form the Association. Bear in mind the law says an Association cannot be formed with fewer than three people.

However you can't actually invite new founding members, or re-issue invitations?

Yes, that does sound like a bug. You should be able to resend invitations during the founding vote.

I have opened this as issue #388.

We don't allow inviting brand new founding members during the founding vote, since this might result in people having very little notice of their potential involvement with the association.

A member made a typo while entering their email, and we needed to wait the3 days to hold the vote again - either being able to add a new founder and then delete the wrong address, or being able to edit the details and resend would have fixed this problem.

Being able to edit invitations is a good idea. I've added to our list as #389.

 Either way the text is misleading?

Agreed! We'll amend it as part of the alterations above.

Sorry for the hassle this has caused, and thanks for reporting the issue.

Chris