-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>>1) Without N Objections:
>> defaults N=1 and D=4
>> minimums N>=1 and D>=4
>
> Works reasonably well, though we should probably say that N
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
>1) Without N Objections:
> defaults N=1 and D=4
> minimums N>=1 and D>=4
Works reasonably well, though we should probably say that N and D are
numbers so we don't decide that they're llamas or something. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
>
> It breaks badly if more than one method is specified, "With support and
> without objection" becomes rathe
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 12:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
It breaks badly if more than one method is specified, "With support and
without objection" becomes rather insane under those definitions (I
can't figure out what happens at all g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
I think the R2124 patch (from the previous version of this proposal) was
a little hacky. Fixing it, though, probably requires reworking the
entire rule.
Replace:
Please check the following for errors/wording improvement/bugs?
Amend Rule 1728 (Dependent Actions) by replacing:
a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the
action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N
is 1 if not otherwise specified):
6 matches
Mail list logo
