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
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:
> 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
