0x44 on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:05:40 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] [s-d] CFI 105

This is Proposal 2012. I do not believe it is on this weeks ballot as I never recognized it. My apologies.

-MoC 0x44
On Jan 5, 2010, at 2:13 PM, James Baxter wrote:

>> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:32:22 -0500
>> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] CFI 105
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I judge CFI 105 UNDECIDED, on the ground that the rules for which action comes first (Sheep Gnome Placement or
>>> Gnome Factory Activation) are ambiguous.
>> I appeal.
>> ...I also note that the results of overturning a decision of UNDECIDED
>> are less than entirely clear about what it becomes next. Anybody want
>> to work out a refined appeals system?
> An unauthored proposal with the text {Overturn CFI 105} is created. Only members of the upper house can vote on this but I assume the MoC still has to recognise it. If it passes then I assume the matter would have to be reCFIed as CFI 105 would be no longer valid. Perhaps the appeal judgement should also include an option to add the judge to the LMJ. 		 	   		  
> _________________________________________________________________
> View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

spoon-business mailing list