On Tuesday 08 April 2008 11:05 Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its > > > members sending a message identified as being from the panel, > > > with the unanimous Support of the panel's members... > > > > Does "the unanimous Support of the panel's members" include the > > support of the panelist performing the dependent action? 'Cause R2124 > > says e can't. > > For the reason stated above, I intend to veto Proposal 5490 unless > somebody talks me out of it.
Normally, I'd say that such an obviously flawed proposal should just be allowed to fail by the standard voting process, but an alarming number of people seem to have voted FOR it. I'd veto.
