On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
>>
>> in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
>> "permitted by other rules".
>
> Permission can be implicit, in the sense of "not prohibited"; R101(i)
>
omd wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
>
> in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
> "permitted by other rules".
Permission can be implicit, in the sense of "not prohibited"; R101(i
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
"permitted by other rules".
Actually, let's just leave the rules alone. On further thought,
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Â Â Â Where permitted
>> Â Â Â by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
>> Â Â Â part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
>
> This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power con
I support.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> this am a test
>
> I object.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> this am a test
I object.
--
ais523
this am a test
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 23:56 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to
> avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to
> perform higher-power changes.
It wasn't accidental at all. Rule 106 used to authorize proposals to
8 matches
Mail list logo
