Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Threat of invasion during the lull

2010-01-19 Thread Ed Murphy
c. wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't >> explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so >> did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting resul

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Threat of invasion during the lull

2010-01-19 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't > explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so > did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting results > for proposal 6583 were incorrect. coppro CoEd on Dec

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Threat of invasion during the lull

2010-01-11 Thread Ed Murphy
c. wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Whups, ignore that! Wrong proposal. So my other question: the CFJs didn't >> explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so >> did it self-ratify or was there a CoE? In case: CoE: the voting resul

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Threat of invasion during the lull

2010-01-11 Thread comex
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Whups, ignore that!  Wrong proposal.  So my other question:  the CFJs didn't > explicitly CoE on prop 6583, which is required to stop self-ratification, so > did it self-ratify or was there a CoE?  In case: CoE: the voting results > for proposa