On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 06:29:33 +0100 (CET), Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> If people cannot understand: "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the
>> voting mechanism shall not be able to decrypt your message." they
>> should not be getting a say in amending our constituti
Manoj Srivastava:
> If people cannot understand:
> "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
> able to decrypt your message."
> they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.
To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:51:26 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor
> typographical change. It is good to be consistent.
A. Standard Resolution Procedure
A.1. Proposal
A.1. Discussion and Amendment
6. The proposer
I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor typographical
change. It is good to be consistent.
-john
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> > super-majority" in a same
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:51:26 -0700, John H Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor
> typographical change. It is good to be consistent.
A. Standard Resolution Procedure
A.1. Proposal
A.1. Discussion and Amendment
6. The proposer
[This is not a call for votes. The real call for votes shall follow
in 24 hours, after people have had an opportunity to voice any
objections to the changes in the proposals on the ballot. If there
are objections, then the proposals would need to be re-sponsored, and
the two week discussion pe
I do not know if this is required, but, I second the minor typographical
change. It is good to be consistent.
-john
Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> > super-majority" in a same
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
> inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
[as discussed with Manoj on IRC]
I hereby request
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me.
>
> Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
> inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real i
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> > wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> > of anthropomorphism.
>
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
>
> You'd
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system
> might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for
> Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which
> means the em
[This is not a call for votes. The real call for votes shall follow
in 24 hours, after people have had an opportunity to voice any
objections to the changes in the proposals on the ballot. If there
are objections, then the proposals would need to be re-sponsored, and
the two week discussion pe
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
> inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real impact.
[as discussed with Manoj on IRC]
I hereby request
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
>> > construc
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:51:59PM +0200, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Very simple "English" question. Please elucidate me.
>
> Was there any specific reason to use "3:1 majority" and "3:1
> super-majority" in a same section for Proposal A and C? They look
> inconsistent to me but seem to cause no real i
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
>> > construc
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:39:24PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Will implies a wish as well. You think Devotee can have
> > wishes, but not intents? You should probably learn about the concept
> > of anthropomorphism.
>
> "The rock will fall at 9.8 m/s/s."
>
> You'd
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Or you care far too much about whether someone will think the system
> might someday handle them (unless you're the Project Secretary for
> Life, though, your successor could, in theory, implement it - which
> means the em
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to
fix this?
as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't
gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort,
th
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> > since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> > with a s
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava
> wrote:
>>> As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
>>> super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Dylan Thurston wrote:
But surely, (a) this is not a big deal, and (b) it's rather late to
fix this?
as for a, yes -- it's no big deal. As for b, the call for votes hasn't
gone out, so I guess it could be fixed. Probably not worth the effort,
though.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> > since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> > with a s
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava
> wrote:
>>> As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
>>> super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as "The voting
> mechanism cannot
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
> discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
> the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
> the gut of the native
On 2003-10-14, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --=-+Y+8urcJMKE7MvxkX+xD
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority
On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more
than a majority.
Then your u
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:13:21 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire construct,
> since it is easily confusing and prone to argument, and replace it
> with a simpler and more easily construed one, such as "The voting
> mechanism cannot
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Additionally, I have observed that native speakers have
> discarded the distinction between shall and will, and never learned
> the rules governing the different usage, so one can very seldom trust
> the gut of the native
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
> The destruction of good English
> teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
> 1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
> nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
> invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
> serve distinct func
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick wrote:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
Sir,
I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction wholly absurd. T
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> A
Hi,
Oliver Elphick:
> The destruction of good English
> teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
> 1967.
That must be the reason why the countries on the top of the (in)famous
Pisa ranking list have comprehensive school systems. :-
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
>> > your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
>> > English and I was at a good school whil
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
> other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they
> think it is good style and reproduce it.
So you continue to say. In my experience second an
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
> >> majority?
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
> > not be able to decrypt your message."
>
> > is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
> > messag
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
> > native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
> > and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.
>
> I find that has litt
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
>> majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
>> interchangeably?
>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:37:59PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I believe the juxtaposition is more than mere happenstance, but that
> nevertheless the two documents are easily separable, are almost
> invariably discussed as separate units within the project, and that they
> serve distinct func
On 2003-10-14 10:01:54 +0100 Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The destruction of good English
teaching began with the move to comprehensive schooling beginning in
1967.
Sir,
I find the assertion of a link between comprehensive schooling in
England and poor English language instruction wh
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick
>> said:
>> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to
>> > read the sentence twice to understand it. It i
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> A
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
> super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
> used interchangeably?
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Als
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not
>> > your native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught
>> > English and I was at
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 10:01:54 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What you wrote is strained and unidiomatic. That is something that
> other non-native English speakers need to understand, lest they
> think it is good style and reproduce it.
So you continue to say. In my e
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
> >> majority? If
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
>
> Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
--
Oliver Elphick
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Hi,
now I am really confused.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:08:25AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall
> > not be able to decrypt your message."
>
> > is to warn people that the mechanism cannot cope with encrypted
> > messag
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 09:08, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Manoj, you say you were taught English - I infer that it is not your
> > native language. It is mine. Furthermore, my father taught English
> > and I was at a good school while grammar was still being taught.
>
> I find that has litt
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
>> majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
>> interchangeably?
> U
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick said:
> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to read
> > the sentence twice to understand it. It is not correct English.
>
> So you say. I beg to differ.
Ma
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:42:32 +0100, Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:02, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:44:28 +0100, Oliver Elphick
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Nevertheless, that use of "shall" is so strange that I had to
>> > read the
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1
> super majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be
> used interchangeably?
Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
distinction. Als
On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 07:59, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
>
> Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Thanks. I was imagining something quite different!
--
Oliver Elphick
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:42:32AM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Devotee? I don't understand that reference.
Devotee is the voting mechanism.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
65 matches
Mail list logo
