Harrison, Andrew on 17 Oct 2000 08:21:19 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Privileged Motion

> From: Joel Uckelman [mailto:uckelman@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Woah. I object to this, at least until I get a chance to 
> bring stuff up to 
> date again, which should be tomorrow. (Anyway, I'm not sure this is 
> legal...)

It was perfectly legal as far as I can tell. What part do you object to? I
honestly am still convinced that the proposals we voted on should have
passed. The only reason that they were never implemented was cos of
XnJester's RFJ's. Now that most of them have been ruled on we can see which
way it went. (Should the judges that haven't ruled yet have been recused by
now?) In my understanding the ruling on RFJ20 says that "Alterations to
Active Proposals or Motions which are recognised during the nweek's voting
DO alter the Ballot Issues." So this means that your recognition of the
proposal alterations was valid, the ballot was valid, the vote was valid,
your recognition of the proposals passing was valid. What is there that is
stopping these proposals passing? I can't see anything. I don't want to RFJ
on this cos the whole situation is getting silly. If there is something I've
missed, please tell me.

The Kid