On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 19:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > I disfavor this case (I really don't want to go look through the
> > archives to find the situation of things).
>
> Me neither necessarily; I think there's a lot in the archives about when
> a sing
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> Gratuitous: CFJ 2517
General difference with this CFJ is (a) that dependent action intents are more
stringent then actions generally but also (b) at the very least, it isn't
possible to accurately announce an intent and specify a proposal to make
dist
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> As a result, any
> dependent actions to make Proposals made after the intent may be
> ambiguous, but the ones before should not be.
It seems that the meta-ambiguity on which Proposals are ambiguous might
be a demonstration of said ambiguity? -G.
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I disfavor this case (I really don't want to go look through the
> archives to find the situation of things).
Me neither necessarily; I think there's a lot in the archives about when
a single announcement can and cannot map to multiple actions. Dependent
Paul VanKoughnett wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Elliott Hird wrote:
>>> 2009/6/9 comex :
I intend, with 3 support, to make each Proposal in the Proposal Pool
distributable.
>>> I support. This is rather rubbish.
>> I support.
>>
>
> I support and do so.
Nt
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Elliott Hird wrote:
>> 2009/6/9 comex :
>>> I intend, with 3 support, to make each Proposal in the Proposal Pool
>>> distributable.
>>
>> I support. This is rather rubbish.
> I support.
>
I support and do so.
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 15:00, comex wrote:
> I intend, with 3 support, to make each Proposal in the Proposal Pool
> distributable.
>
Care to support any current attempts?
BobTHJ
7 matches
Mail list logo
