Yes, they do say that. In the name. Election rules.
On 12 April 2013 00:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely.
That's not what they say, though. Unless
Titles of legal documents rarely mean anything.
On 12 Apr 2013 08:54, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, they do say that. In the name. Election rules.
On 12 April 2013 00:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, James Farrar
Look, if you want to argue that election rules apply to non-elected
directors, that's your privilege.
On 12 April 2013 10:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Titles of legal documents rarely mean anything.
On 12 Apr 2013 08:54, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes,
On 12 April 2013 10:56, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, if you want to argue that election rules apply to non-elected
directors, that's your privilege.
If you want to start re-interpreting rules to mean something other
than what they actually say, then I suggest getting some
On 12 April 2013 12:07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 April 2013 10:56, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, if you want to argue that election rules apply to non-elected
directors, that's your privilege.
If you want to start re-interpreting rules to mean
On 12 April 2013 13:00, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
On that note I do side with James - it does say Election Rules.
As I've said, the title is irrelevant. The rules say The maximum
number of directors shall be seven. It doesn't say elected
directors.
It is possible a court would
Really, you're looking for problems where none exists.
If we end up in a situation where nothing defines the number of directors,
that's a problem that needs rectifying before an election process can begin.
But in any other situation we know how stuff is supposed to work even if
the language can
On 12 April 2013 16:24, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Really, you're looking for problems where none exists.
If we end up in a situation where nothing defines the number of directors,
that's a problem that needs rectifying before an election process can begin.
But in any other
And I'm sure that if we do anything in the tiniest way different from your
interpretation of them you won't hesitate to let us know in your inimitable
helpful and friendly fashion.
On 12 Apr 2013 17:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 April 2013 16:24, James Farrar
On 12 April 2013 18:53, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm sure that if we do anything in the tiniest way different from your
interpretation of them you won't hesitate to let us know in your inimitable
helpful and friendly fashion.
Wrong again. You guys are on your own. I've
I would like to draw attention to a discussion on the UK wiki:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:EGM_2013/Resolutions#How_the_vote_works
Mike Peel has pointed out some pretty serious issues with the way the
resolutions we're supposed to be voting on at the weekend are drafted
and how they
Hi Tom,
Yes, you're right that due to a drafting problem one particular combination
of votes at the EGM would result in an unanticipated result - we would
effect a change in the voting system, but would not have a specified
maximum number of directors.
That is a bit irritating but it could be
On 11 April 2013 18:33, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tom,
Yes, you're right that due to a drafting problem one particular combination
of votes at the EGM would result in an unanticipated result - we would
effect a change in the voting system, but would not have a
On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 April 2013 18:33, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tom,
Yes, you're right that due to a drafting problem one particular
combination
of votes at the EGM would result in an unanticipated result -
On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much
anything other than all passing and all failing is problematic to
varying degrees.
By
The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely.
On 11 Apr 2013, at 23:37, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
There are several
On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely.
That's not what they say, though. Unless something is ambiguous or
impossible, legally it is interpreted literally. Intent is irrelevant.
I am not a lawyer, so I don't
17 matches
Mail list logo
