Andrew, as stated prior, the purpose of reposting is this, we had 3 different ideas lumped into one proposal. It was requested at the meeting to separate them into 3 different proposals, (of which you may remember it was inquired if we should split them up in the meeting prior, but was decided against at the time), so they could stand on thier individual merit. This one about key access seemed to be the most controversial, but Steve wasn't trying to force this through he was just restating it separately so it could be discussed separately, and I think it has a good likelyhood of evolving/maturing into something we all can accept. But we have to start somewhere.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:28 PM, a l <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
