On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 15:09:17 Robert Rybicki wrote: > With the very well worded proposal of minors and coming to the space, I do > not see how this proposal is necessary or even a good idea. I would like > to think that my family has made a good example as to why. The issue has > always been apparent to me of liability. This proposal does not solve this > issue. It only bars minors from keys. Why do this?
Steve loves rules and has an authoritarian stance on everything. Thats the only reasonable answer that can explain this majestic piece of legalese: https://hackerbots.net/~tdfischer/BlockingProcedureProposal.pdf (Copied to my server in case its deleted from ubuntuone) > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 2:59 PM, Steve Radonich IV <nesfr...@outlook.com> > > wrote: > > > > Any minor that is a member before the date that this proposal is approved > > shall be exempt from the following rule. > > > > No minors will be permitted to have a key, or apply for one. > > > > The proposal re-written, any and all feed back is welcome. I would like to > > make it known that I am not in support of this proposal just rewriting > > them into better wording as they were originally intended. > > > > -Steve > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@synhak.org > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
