Re: [s-d] C-Nomic anyone?

Mike McGann on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:41:50 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] C-Nomic anyone?

To: "discussion list for B Nomic" <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] C-Nomic anyone?
From: "Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:41:44 -0400
In-reply-to: <44e5a2650806300813m5c71b18cid8ee815217554856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4862809E.40602@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <784a579e0806251040w59a75e1ak881a6a21301b404f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1de9d4fc0806272317t6991f510n955acec1b706a74e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <285c99840806272334w6aa7c1a4ybb64651da6b11fe4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4865DD42.7090404@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650806280657r543fbe6dr4f70df77c9b6c924@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <285c99840806292323h7ee7e2b7s6820408961fab761@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44e5a2650806300813m5c71b18cid8ee815217554856@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
> > A significant reduction in the ruleset might be a good justification for
> > starting a new era.
>

I vote against this just to save the MoL from renaming all the rules
prefixes.

I also move that we elevate Rule 1 to super-Constitutional status that
requires a unanimous vote to change or repeal.

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

Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Future Action
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Future Action
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread