Rearranged eboard positions - #308
Conversation
…rnd, socials, imps, history, pr
|
IMPs should go first. Lgtm |
|
Why is this necessary? |
|
We've been talking about standardizing the order of directorships across everything (HM slides, Eboard agenda, etc) and we were going to use the constitutional order as a base, but it doesn't really make sense. It's kind of just an arbitrary order, not even based on when the office was created (PR is in the middle). This order is kind of still arbitrary but sorted in a way that makes sense for org-wide standardization |
|
i think what nick said makes a lot of sense. Imo, if we are going to pick any consistent order of directorships, it should be chair evals fincancials as the first 3, and then the rest after that in whatever order (which is what this pr does) |
shaeespring
left a comment
shaeespring
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the goal is consistency here, abbreviations and breakdown of dues also need reordered
i disagree. Abbreviations and breakdown of dues are specifically ordered differently. Abbreviations is ordered alphabetically, and dues breakdown is in order of decreasing budget percentage |
|
Mm w comms |
|
I'll switch Social and R&D since they're equal percentage |
i should have said, within equal percentages it is ordered from longest to shortest name |
|
Why is it ordered like that |
|
when we did the rewrite, we decided that when multiple directorships have an equal budget percentage, the table looks the nicest when they are ordered from longest to shortest names. i dont remember if there was any reason beyond that |
|
Aight bet |
|
Done |
|
@shaeespring Do you still want changes to this? If not, you should update your review |
5 participants
Check one:
Summary of change(s):
Rearranged eboard positions to be: chair, evals, financials, opcomm, rnd, socials, imps, history, pr.