As I remember it, the discussion last night was generally against this wording why repost it. I don't recall if alternate wording was agreed on. Tangentially related to Torrie's comment: do we have something already on the books that addresses this? I'll get the exact wording of the liability waiver to double check.
Please keep discussion constructive towards the proposal. Regards, Andrew L On Apr 30, 2014 4:14 PM, "Steve Radonich IV" <[email protected]> wrote: > If you read the e-mail Torrie you would know that I am not in support of > this proposal, but was in fact one that you made in the first place. I was > just asked to rewrite them and separate them into 3 different proposals so > that they could all be addressed individually as they have nothing to do > with each other. Please continue to act unexcellent towards other members > of SYNHAK, it really solves the problem and helps your situation. :) > > -Steve > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:12:39 -0400 > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Key Policy in Relation to Minors > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 15:09:17 Robert Rybicki wrote: > > With the very well worded proposal of minors and coming to the space, I do > > not see how this proposal is necessary or even a good idea. I would like > > to think that my family has made a good example as to why. The issue has > > always been apparent to me of liability. This proposal does not solve this > > issue. It only bars minors from keys. Why do this? > > Steve loves rules and has an authoritarian stance on everything. Thats the > only reasonable answer that can explain this majestic piece of legalese: > > https://hackerbots.net/~tdfischer/BlockingProcedureProposal.pdf > > (Copied to my server in case its deleted from ubuntuone) > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Any minor that is a member before the date that this proposal is approved > > > shall be exempt from the following rule. > > > > > > No minors will be permitted to have a key, or apply for one. > > > > > > The proposal re-written, any and all feed back is welcome. I would like to > > > make it known that I am not in support of this proposal just rewriting > > > them into better wording as they were originally intended. > > > > > > -Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list > [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
