On Feb 4, 2008 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I'm of two minds here. If a person want eir partnership to do
> something, e is hindered in supporting actions as partners can't support,
> but helped in objecting actions as partners can't object. I'm torn on
> whether th
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 2008 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
>>> first-class players at the start of the voting period,
>>>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
>> first-class players at the start of the voting period,
>> except for: (a) members of the basis of the i
On Feb 4, 2008 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
> first-class players at the start of the voting period,
> except for: (a) members of the basis of the initiator of
> the decision; and (b
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active
> first-class players at the start of the voting period,
> except for: (a) members of the basis of the initiator of
> the decision; and (b) any entities disqualified by the rule
>
Draft II: Intelligent Dependent Action reporting, AI-2.
-
[Draft II changes:
- No double-votes if you support your second-class person's actions
(amendment to (d))
- cleaned up reporting requirements (simplified them by
6 matches
Mail list logo
