Kurt Lieber posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:28:35 +:
> This solution has the same yellow star stigma that the original proposal
> does.
Agreed, altho it seems that's the way the council wanted it...
> The only outstanding administrative issue is how the
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:47:18AM -0700 or thereabouts, Duncan wrote:
> As proposed, that recognizably distinct address was a subdomain. However,
> infra has objected to that as unworkable. However, the wording of the
> GLEP makes it clear that the subdomain was a proposal and that the details
>
forgot my sarcasm tags :)
Get the idea though?
On 11/23/05, Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote:
>
>
> > Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just
> > to alleiviate any confusion someone may have...
>
> > [snip a buttload o
23.11.2005, 20:07:15, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> Can we get all current developers renamed to nick.developer then? just
> to alleiviate any confusion someone may have...
> [snip a buttload or two]
NO (I sincerely hope at least), and please let's finally stop messing w/ email
addresses causing furthe
On 11/23/05, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700
> > Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it
Marius Mauch posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:40:49 +0100:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:39:08 -0700
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here's the proposal again. If there's an issue with it, shoot it down,
>> but from here, it certainly seems to fit the bill
