On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Sgeo <[email protected]> wrote: >> [Identical to previous version, which narrowly failed quorum but >> was otherwise unanimously supported.] > I agree to the following > {This is a pledge, and a public contract. If the previous version of > the above proposal was unanimously supported, anyone CAN and MAY, by > annoucement, act on my behalf to cause me to vote FOR the decision on > the above proposal. Sgeo CAN and MAY terminate this contract by > announcement.}
If it wasn't, it would be very easy to get him the maximum two rests for misleading people with the intent to pass a proposal. Of course, eir statement is correct, although I would have voted against 6190 because I think it's a no-op.
