Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Simon Law
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record. I think we should never modify them. It should be possible to

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:37AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record.

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Aaron M. Ucko
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it was. I did include the supercession language later on in the document, but forgot it at the top of clause 5. This version also looks fine modulo one spelling nit: forms of supersede are traditionally spelled with Ss, not Cs. --

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording?

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal). manoj

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Steve Langasek
Seconded. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording?

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 00:52:13 -0400, Simon Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:59:31PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 01:44:37AM -0400, Simon Law wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:04:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do people think that we should only supercede foundation documents, and never modify them? I would not be averse to preserving a historical record.

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Oliver Elphick
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording? (New sponsors are also welcome for second this modified proposal).

Re: [AMENDMENT BR2] GR: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5 of the constitution

2003-09-22 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 07:43:49PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 04:59, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi folks, Here is my amended proposal, further changed by incorporating Branden's suggestions. Would the sponsors of my proposal approve of this changed wording?