On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 23:56 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to
avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to
perform higher-power changes.
It wasn't accidental at all. Rule 106 used to authorize proposals to
this am a test
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
this am a test
I object.
--
ais523
I support.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
this am a test
I object.
--
ais523
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
   Where permitted
   by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
   part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
This is a no-op (except possibly in the case
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
permitted by other rules.
Actually, let's just leave the rules alone.
omd wrote:
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
permitted by other rules.
Permission can be implicit, in the sense of not
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
permitted by other rules.
Permission can be implicit, in the sense of not prohibited;
8 matches
Mail list logo
