Could someone explain this to me? I vaguely recall something about a
former rule that made discussion of voting on these things illegal,
but that rule no longer exists, right?
avpx
2008/6/6 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL (TITLE: "AGORA") (AI=1, II=1):
> {{{
>
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> root wrote:
>
>> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
>> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
>> as "preventing a proposal from taking effect", a Power-3 secured
On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, comex wrote:
>>> Who wants to propose bringing insane proposals back?
>>
>> Weird tactical voting promotion of any/all kinds... good. Ones that
>> depend on making
BobTHJ wrote:
> 1. Who manages agoranomic.org? It could use an update (about a year
> out of date).
Eris hosts it, but most of the content was written by Zefram.
> 2. Should we designate one of these backup lists as the unofficial
> "discussion-forum"? Some of us are sending mail to one while ot
root wrote:
> Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
> work? Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
> as "preventing a proposal from taking effect", a Power-3 secured
> change per Rule 106?
No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for
Ivan Hope wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1988: UNDETERMINED
>>
>> The dangling pronoun "it" is sufficiently vague to make this judgement
>> appropriate.
>
> True, "it" can refer to anything at all, but what you're saying is
> that for some possibl
6 matches
Mail list logo
