On Mon, Sep 06, 1999 at 04:12:43PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ben> I received around 5 seconds to this proposal and several agreements on > it's > Ben> usefulness. 1 objection doesn't kill all this agreement does it? > > No, it does not. But niether can this proposal be > autonatically acceptted. Please revert back to the amendment pahase > (extending the discussion period), and try and resolve the issue. > > If the objection is not resolved, you need to vote on this > (either a formal vote, asking the secretary, or an informal > one, if some one agrees to take the vote, adn check all > signatures, etc, and post the results). > > Unfortunately, I am getting the impression that the primary > and seconds of this proposal have not really read the guidelines (and > I owe Raul an apology).
IIRC, the objection was invalidated by mine, and other's replies. As for Raul's objections, I don't see anything in his objection that is arguable other than his dislike for it. His only objections were: 1) Some one else had an objection 2) This change isn't public enough As for 2, that's what this list is for, to make things public. Lot's of people are already discussing it, and outside the list, I don't even find a single objection. I set a one week discussion period, after which there was one (invalidated) objection. I don't see why this, afterthought, objection would stop this proposal dead in it's tracks. Ben
