DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

2008-04-15 Thread Ed Murphy
Proto-Proposal: Contract Changes, take two (AI = 1.5, please) [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would you support this revision?] Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text: A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it

Re: DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

2008-04-15 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would you support this revision?] What's the difference from the previous version? I voted against the last one because I generally dislike cleaning proposals

Re: DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

2008-04-15 Thread Charles Reiss
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would you support this revision?] What's the difference from the

Re: DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

2008-04-15 Thread Ed Murphy
root wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Zefram, root, you voted against the previous version of this; would you support this revision?] What's the difference from the previous version? Mainly any of these in both parts of the revised R2198. I

Re: DIS: Proto: Contract Cleanup, take two

2008-04-15 Thread Ian Kelly
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it seems to me that this should just read by a party without objection, if the contract is a pledge. Plus the ugly verbiage about blocking changes, of course. -root