You are correct in remembering that there was no agreed upon rewording, but I volunteered to do so as it needed done. Everyone was invited to sit down with me after to meeting to help rewrite the proposal in a manner that was kept with the original intention of the proposal. It was reposted as I was not the one that originally posted it and it has not been withdrawn by the person who did so. The only people who sat down and discussed these issues with me in rewriting the proposals was Mike, and Philip.
As for keeping the discussion contructive I would love to and have been trying to, but as I am personally attacked I can't be expected to just sit here idly and accept it. -Steve Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:28:43 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Key Policy in Relation to Minors 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
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
