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

[shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx]

> 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.


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