Ed Murphy wrote:
>             Another possible interpretation is that the
>members are indirectly in unanimous agreement to abide by the
>outcome of the non-unanimous voting process (R1742 should
>probably be amended to make this explicit).

That's pretty much what I intended when I drafted the present R1742.
Similarly for changing parties.  But looking at it yesterday I realised
that it's open to several other interpretations.

-zefram

Reply via email to