On 7/17/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/17/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The substance is in fact that of proposal 5050, which was voted down.
>
> F/A was 4/2, and one of those 2 was me. (I think I misunderstood
> the proposal's effect at the time.)
I was the other vote against, and the only reason I voted against was
because it would have merged R2142 into R106. The mechanic itself was
fine.
Oh, and also because it would have changed "2 Supporters" back to "3
Supporters", which Murphy's proto does not do. Although at this point
I'm thinking that perhaps the mechanism should just use Agoran
Consent.
-root
