On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 19:41, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > BobTHJ wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 13:34, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >>> Voting results for Proposals 6476 - 6494: >>> >>> 6481 depends on the state of the PNP: >>> If the PNP has the non-c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote AGAINST, >>> and 6481 fails (3 FOR, 2 AGAINST). >>> If the PNP has the c. text, then Pavitra and coppro vote FOR, and 6481 >>> succeeds (5 FOR, 0 AGAINST). >>> If the PNP doesn't exist at all, then Pavitra votes FOR and coppro >>> votes AGAINST, and 6481 succeeds (4 FOR, 1 AGAINST) but with no >>> useful effect. >> >> The PNP was terminated with finality. I don't recall the exact text of >> the votes, but if they check the current state of the PNP then it is >> terminated, thus the third option here seems like the likely outcome. > > This is the first I've heard of the PNP terminating due to a voting > process. Can you provide some details?
There are two possible scenarios: 1. Wooble was unable to gather the required consent to amend the PNP to point to the new instance. Since the nomic.info instance was down there were no registered PerlNomic players, and thus no PNP parties. Wooble announced the termination of the PNP. 2. The PNP was pointed to the normish instance. c. then scammed PerlNomic to mousetrap the PNP. E then recently terminated it by announcement. > > Regarding CFJ 2676, can someone provide specific timestamps for the > following relevant events? > > 1) c. initiates an attempt to amend the text of the PNP contract > 2) c.'s attempt succeeds > 3) nomic.info's list of PerlNomic players is deleted > 4) someone uses the PNP contract's pre-controversy clause 8 to > redirect the definition of "PerlNomic" to the normish instance > (did this happen at all?) > http://nomic.bob-space.com/viewcontract.aspx?contractID=40 The history section at the bottom has timestamps for 2 and 4 (disputed). BobTHJ
