On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Personally, I worry about any kind of wholesale change in the language
> of the constitution. Yeah, if you change major chunks of the document
> then current ambiguities would go away. But how do we know whether we're
> introducing n
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Personally, I worry about any kind of wholesale change in the language
> > of the constitution. Yeah, if you change major chunks of the document
> > then current ambiguities would go away. But how do we know whether we're
> > intro
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 07:48:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 08:16:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It's not like your interpretation (of supermajorities in particular,
> > but also of cyclic tie-breaking) has ever actually been used before,
> > either within Debian o
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Personally, I worry about any kind of wholesale change in the language
> of the constitution. Yeah, if you change major chunks of the document
> then current ambiguities would go away. But how do we know whether we're
> introducing ne
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:43:57PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Personally, I worry about any kind of wholesale change in the language
> > of the constitution. Yeah, if you change major chunks of the document
> > then current ambiguities would go away. But how do we know whether we're
> > introd
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 07:48:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 08:16:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It's not like your interpretation (of supermajorities in particular,
> > but also of cyclic tie-breaking) has ever actually been used before,
> > either within Debian or
6 matches
Mail list logo
