Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order

Ed Murphy on Sat, 9 May 2009 22:51:56 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order

To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 22:50:44 -0700
In-reply-to: <653283240905092118r438029c8g2c476ccf4e1d34f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <653283240905092118r438029c8g2c476ccf4e1d34f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0

Wooble wrote:

> Rule 0 allows each PEP to submit 1 RP; they cannot be revised.  You
> can also vote for a single RP; there's no ranked pairs voting.

What would be messed up if the first version of c-walker's RP
passed?  If it's bad enough, we can de-Panic (stopping the current
procedure) and try again.

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order
  - From: Charles Walker

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] [s-b] point of order
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread