On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Sprocklem wrote:
Do you want this office, or just want the job completed? If you want the
office then I'll just resign it, otherwise I'll (re)assign the
appropriate CFJs.
Your choice! Time looks less sucked up for me for the
On 2 October 2014 19:03, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
metaphorical hands (or chairs) up if you are interested enough
in judging and are also around this/next week to judge a case
on time. -G.
I don't know if I have a chair from before, but if I have I return it.
I will not
I can also judge, if there's old stuff sitting in the queue.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 2, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
metaphorical hands (or chairs) up if you are interested enough
in judging and are also around this/next week to judge a case
on
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This requires three things for any method of changing the rules:
1. It must be reasonable;
2. It must be public;
3. It must be a process.
Note: This is the first time this Rule has been interpreted since it
changed from the Rights wording of R101.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, omd wrote:
This is well known enough that I find it unimaginable that had I
waited the extra 6 hours (after sending the same original message),
any sort of controversy would have arisen in the first place; yet that
is what the judge implies by faulting the intent.
Yes,
I've had enough to say, I guess, but let me add one last post.
2. Omd specified the Process informally. Fine. But a informal
specifications relies on common assumptions.
This is no different from the original in making the assumption that
the process must be a Process, rather than
6 matches
Mail list logo
