On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> Therefore,
> there is nothing implicit in the definition of a proposal to prevent one
> from being amended; as the attributes of proposals are not secured, it is
> possible for a Rule to (grant permission to) amend them.
General counteragument:
A rule specifi
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> I hereby modify the text of Proposal 6072 (which would have been failed
> due to insufficient power anyway, btw) to read:
Oops, did I miss the place where registration status was secured (I looked
for it but did so quickly). -G.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Warrigal wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:48 PM, comex wrote:
>> Test, test, test, test, test, test.
>
> I support.
Sorry, that's the last test. Cron's been acting up.
Delivered-To: penguinoftheg...@gmail.com
Received: by 10.181.134.15 with SMTP id l15cs70502bkn;
Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.100.143.14 with SMTP id q14mr2135590and.47.1234310468784;
Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:01:08 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path:
Received: from yzma.cla
Thanks.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein
> wrote:
> > I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
> > adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which
> have
> > an AI of 1), are adopt
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
> adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which have
> an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
Power=N rules can only be modified by proposa
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:29 -0600, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
> adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which
> have an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
>
Adoption indexes affect what the proposal
I have been browsing the FLR and do not seems to fully understand the
adoption indexes of proposals. Aside from maintenance proposals (which have
an AI of 1), are adoption indexes arbitrary?
-Yally
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> This started an entirely new self-ratification period. Note that this
> requires the document to be challenged "again" to prevent it
> self-ratifying. We're one week past the denial now, and it wasn't
> challenged during that time; any challenges that might
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > Well, it's definitely TRUE now. The proposal results in question just
> > self-ratified.
>
> Ah. Was this a case of "the caller purposefully phrased the question
> so as not to directly challenge t
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> Well, it's definitely TRUE now. The proposal results in question just
> self-ratified.
Ah. Was this a case of "the caller purposefully phrased the question
so as not to directly challenge the results of the proposal"? Gotta
learn to watch for those. -g
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 12:17 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > == CFJ 2365 ==
> >
> >Rule 2238 exists.
>
> While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
> that the
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 10:12 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
> > that the "is" in R2156 means "is" and not "starts at, subject to
> > modification by spending Notes", and while language supp
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> While I'm still, in my Strict Interpretation philosophy, convinced
> that the "is" in R2156 means "is" and not "starts at, subject to
> modification by spending Notes", and while language supporting the
> latter was added and subsequently removed from R
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 08:54 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
> > The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
>
> One of these probably failed, pending the outcome of CFJ 2366 (which
> I'm fairly lik
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
> The AFO spends E E to remove one of my Rests.
One of these probably failed, pending the outcome of CFJ 2366 (which
I'm fairly likely to judge FALSE since as far as I can tell neither
comex nor ais52
16 matches
Mail list logo
