Re: [s-d] $wgLogo

Peter Cooper Jr. on Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:06:20 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] $wgLogo

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
From: "Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:06:11 -0500
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
In-reply-to: <2f4350400612100431i6e0fee7cy62e9a1163860b2af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx's message of "Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:31:59 +0000")
Mail-followup-to: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
References: <200612082139.09513.comexk@xxxxxxxxx> <2f4350400612091444m74539b43y285e636305e8562b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <457B4465.1020205@xxxxxxx> <200612091843.40057.comexk@xxxxxxxxx> <2f4350400612100431i6e0fee7cy62e9a1163860b2af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt)

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> Well, I think that's a good idea, except that it would mean that you
> could make an RFJ on an RFJ.

RFJs on RFJs seem perfectly reasonable to me, if there's a question
about whether something is actually on RFJ or the entity assigned to
is an Eligible Judge or something like that.

> The rules currently say that the first RFJ would still stand - I
> think - but even so it could be a recepie for argument...

I don't think the rules say anything like that. They just say that
Resolved RFJs guide further interpretation of the Rules.

-- 
Peter C.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
  - From: shadowfirebird
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
  - From: bd
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
  - From: shadowfirebird

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] $wgLogo
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] nweek 113 ballot
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread