|
Craig Daniel on Sun, 3 Jan 2010 15:25:26 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Umm...I just realised we don't actually have a Rulekeepor
|
- To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Umm...I just realised we don't actually have a Rulekeepor
- From: Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:25:22 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=HR1FTzxUSBRSD2Y34MsXkxApJbri9qZGjuDpfPNa7No=; b=LUx0eP4WJSpwVy7gujA/XfAhRTYiN2aa+WrJ3WP5a0VrbdOguhYjQ+/k3B1WLhdRsl KSZfSujFP1syZ2ycNeC5trnMoST/8f/YYuVcJvMKy9PZpH/qi8p0+uovVguMlrCt8QuW heBTNtn40AGh+e3TO/xp7r6YoUze1W6nnDMW0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=B12xmZcHfZAQhRsXAGDF+69uT5FQ/GN9bqXGJl9uzr9TJIDsmfsYcWvujID3+zth0T DtK9dnWp7bM1UbbN/HJ1rjGA4pDirw9hlF1qYQgzDjzwqDL1kKL5g9atol/BrSV1sNb0 QsZDLXOwLKLapLfJQZzWGYPWcH1Fp7fms4ApA=
- In-reply-to: <SNT109-W24858E87DC745EE5FDCE5785750@xxxxxxx>
- References: <SNT109-W24858E87DC745EE5FDCE5785750@xxxxxxx>
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 4:56 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I was just thinking that we haven't had a Rulekeepor's report, that got me wondering if the Rulekeepor has to make a
> report or just update the wiki page. So I checked the rules and...there's no rule defining the Rulekeepor. The only
> mentions of the Rulekeepor are in Rules 6 and 59.
...oops.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss