shadowfirebird on Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:57:41 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo

> Hmm... I'm going to have to disagree. RFJ 6 is not about interpreting
> the contents of a proposal, but whether the proposal fits the rules'
> definition of a proposal. (Now, this statement of mine could certainly
> have an RFJ submitted about it, since I might be wrong. But we'll go
> on for now with this line of reasoning...)

I find that a bit difficult to support.  The statement consisted of a
single sentance, the subject of which was "the proposal titled...".

It's true that if the statement had been reworded it would have fallen
within the rules.  But I didn't feel that it was within my power to
reword it.

spoon-discuss mailing list