Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-24 Thread Ed Murphy
ais523 wrote: > On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:29 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> G. wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > 6372 D 1 2.0 G. Transition Team AGAINST >>> I'm a little puzzled by opposition to this (not just on your part, other >>> voters too...) is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-24 Thread Alex Smith
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:29 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >>> 6372 D 1 2.0 G. Transition Team > >> AGAINST > > > > I'm a little puzzled by opposition to this (not just on your part, other > > voters too...) is there a bug

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-23 Thread Ed Murphy
G. wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> 6372 D 1 2.0 G. Transition Team >> AGAINST > > I'm a little puzzled by opposition to this (not just on your part, other > voters too...) is there a bug I'm missing? Because to me this one seemed > like a straightforward

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> 6372 D 1 2.0 G.                  Transition Team > AGAINST I'm a little puzzled by opposition to this (not just on your part, other voters too...) is there a bug I'm missing? Because to me this one seemed like a straightforward "this would be a usef

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-17 Thread Benjamin Caplan
comex wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Benjamin > Caplan wrote: >> Interesting. >> >> We really need a more explicitly well-ordered ruleset if things like >> this need to be spelled out. Rule says "rules to the contrary >> notwithstanding", and that just isn't true. The rules SHOULD

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-17 Thread comex
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Interesting. > > We really need a more explicitly well-ordered ruleset if things like > this need to be spelled out. Rule says "rules to the contrary > notwithstanding", and that just isn't true. The rules SHOULD NOT contain > falsehoo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-17 Thread Benjamin Caplan
Ed Murphy wrote: > coppro wrote: > >>> 6357 O 1 1.0 comex 3 support is boring >> FOR x 12 > > Rule 2019 takes precedence over Rule (both Power=2, both claim > precedence, 2019 has lower rule number) so this works. Interesting. We really need a more explicitly well-ordered rul

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6355-6376

2009-06-17 Thread Ed Murphy
coppro wrote: >> 6357 O 1 1.0 comex 3 support is boring > FOR x 12 Rule 2019 takes precedence over Rule (both Power=2, both claim precedence, 2019 has lower rule number) so this works.