On 17/04/17 20:07, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote: > I think this is the crux of the matter at hand. There are different > interpretations of “posting” and interpreting it one way or the > other is the cause of the issue. Looking at “entirety” is one way. > Looking at “intent” is another. ____
If we want to figure out what "posting" means, we should look at the ballot where that language was introduced: https://cabforum.org/2012/07/25/ballot-79-mailing-list-usage/ Here's one of the provisions of that ballot: "2) Draft minutes of Forum meetings (both virtual and in-person, and including any sub-groups or committees) will be posted to the private list to allow members to make sure they are being correctly reported." If the concept of "posting" were allowed to include "sending but not getting through", how could this make any sense? Members cannot make sure they are being correctly reported if they can't read the message with the minutes in. It seems clear to me that the meaning of "posting" in the original ballot which introduced that language includes the concept of successful delivery to list members. Gerv _______________________________________________ Public mailing list Public@cabforum.org https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
