On Nov 18, 2007 10:55 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had chosen Assets because permissions would share the concept of 'being
> owned'
> I guess. Each permission would belong to a person and specify an action.
> Permissions being liquid and allowing me to transfer them actually see
I'm liking Levi's permission-as-a-state idea, although I don't think
that there's any reason that permissions should be assets...unless we
go way overboard with it. :-)
Liquid assets, no doubt.
I had chosen Assets because permissions would share the concept of 'being owned'
I guess. Each
root wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN
perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism
is specified) within one week after resolving the decision.
Rule 2172 do
On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN
>perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism
>is specified) within one week after resolving the decision.
Rule 2172 doesn't speci
root wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're remov
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're r
On Nov 18, 2007 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point
> of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of
> Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way
> for the rule to supply a
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
>
> CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
> you're removing.
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement".
On Nov 18, 2007 7:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[E
Levi wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to per
Ed Murphy wrote:
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a depende
comex wrote:
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a dependent
action should b
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote:
>(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST
> perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision.
add CAN
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
13 matches
Mail list logo
