James Baxter on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 10:55:40 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.


> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:39:39 -0700
> From: emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.
> 
> 
> CFI:  In Rule 79, "its content may be modified using proposals"
> should be interpreted as "its content may be modified via the
> adoption of a proposal, as specified by that proposal".


This is CFI 116. I assign CFI 116 to Judge Gitchel. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss