On 25 Sep 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> > I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> > familiarize themselves with the issue again.
> The URLs cited all return "Not Found". To "give everybody the
> chance to read the initial exchange and familiarize themsel
Yes, thanks for the correction.
-- John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> - - snip - -
> > the Constitution makes discrimination between voting methods based
> > upon the Secretary's (or anyone else's) asse
On 25 Sep 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> > I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> > familiarize themselves with the issue again.
> The URLs cited all return "Not Found". To "give everybody the
> chance to read the initial exchange and familiarize themse
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- - snip - -
> the Constitution makes discrimination between voting methods based
> upon the Secretary's (or anyone else's) assesment of the relative
> importance of a document.
- - snip - -
Yes, thanks for the correction.
-- John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert D. Hilliard) writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> - - snip - -
> > the Constitution makes discrimination between voting methods based
> > upon the Secretary's (or anyone else's) ass
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- - snip - -
> the Constitution makes discrimination between voting methods based
> upon the Secretary's (or anyone else's) assesment of the relative
> importance of a document.
- - snip - -
[ Note: I'm posting this to -devel because I feel it is of importance
to developers at large. Please carry out the discussion on -vote. ]
SUMMARY
---
The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
in
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My understanding of Darren's argument is that the original proposal
> (removal of non-free) would modify the Social Contract, which is
> considered to be "constitutional" in nature (and thus requires the 3-1
> majority to be modified). However, if aj's
[ Note: I'm posting this to -devel because I feel it is of importance
to developers at large. Please carry out the discussion on -vote. ]
SUMMARY
---
The Secretary has advanced a document outlining his plans and opinion
for conducting a vote on GR 8, advanced by myself. His plans rest in
i
At 10:45 AM 9/25/00 -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
OOPS - I intended to send this to the list, but it went to gecko only,
"Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> familiarize themselves with the issue again.
OOPS - I intended to send this to the list, but it went to gecko only,
"Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> familiarize themselves with the issue again.
The URLs cited all return "Not Found". To "give every
At 09:42 AM 9/25/00 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > determine
On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resoluti
Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My understanding of Darren's argument is that the original proposal
> (removal of non-free) would modify the Social Contract, which is
> considered to be "constitutional" in nature (and thus requires the 3-1
> majority to be modified). However, if aj'
At 10:45 AM 9/25/00 -0400, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
>OOPS - I intended to send this to the list, but it went to gecko only,
>
>"Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> > familiarize themselves with the issue again.
OOPS - I intended to send this to the list, but it went to gecko only,
"Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wish to give everybody the chance to read the initial exchange and
> familiarize themselves with the issue again.
The URLs cited all return "Not Found". To "give ever
At 09:42 AM 9/25/00 -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
>On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> > "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > > de
On Sep 24, John Goerzen wrote:
> "Darren O. Benham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We will have to conduct two separate ballots. The first question is the
> > acceptance or rejection of the amendment. The outcome of that vote will
> > determine if the proposal is voted under the General Resolut
18 matches
Mail list logo
