Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection

Mike McGann on Fri, 16 May 2008 07:03:19 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection
From: "Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:03:14 -0400
In-reply-to: <285c99840805160639p28292b99j3b1204ca0b9037dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <285c99840805160627v27eb4534w678bdd1630e32f8d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <6d741b990805160632v620dff6cod2484810651c8ecf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <285c99840805160639p28292b99j3b1204ca0b9037dd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Charles Schaefer
<chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> How about making it so a contract would need more support than objection
> after, say, 2 ndays?

Yeah, I would vote for that, but I do think we need to formalize what
"more support than objection" means in the Ruleset.

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

References:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection
  - From: Mike McGann
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection
  - From: Charles Schaefer

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Corporate Law
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread