Zefram wrote:
>> 5457 O1 1Murphy Proposal reporting requirements
> AGAINST*10 (there's a good reason why proposal distributions lacking
> those data are valid albeit illegal)
They'd still be valid if no one points out the omission within a week
after distribution.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems a bit cumbersome, especially the whole "tortoise" terminology.
Well, at least it's not broken like the current rule is.
-root
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I vote as follows:
> >
> >
> > > 5451 D1 3rootAllow Appeals of Paradox
> > AGAINST
>
> May I ask what you dislike about the p
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>
>
> > 5451 D1 3rootAllow Appeals of Paradox
> AGAINST
May I ask what you dislike about the proposal?
-root
4 matches
Mail list logo
