On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:28 PM, omd wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Having a base text published, then having a second message published saying
>> "this now overrides the base text" is no different than having something
>> at the bottom of the base text saying "that
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Pavitra wrote:
>> On 07/08/2011 10:18 PM, omd wrote:
>> > *arguably Agora would cease to be a person in the interval between the
>> > adoption of a proposal and the publication of an updated ruleset?
>>
>> The resolution
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 10:18 PM, omd wrote:
> > *arguably Agora would cease to be a person in the interval between the
> > adoption of a proposal and the publication of an updated ruleset?
>
> The resolution of a proposal generally includes the text of the changes;
>
On 07/08/2011 10:18 PM, omd wrote:
> *arguably Agora would cease to be a person in the interval between the
> adoption of a proposal and the publication of an updated ruleset?
The resolution of a proposal generally includes the text of the changes;
during that interval, the entire text has not bee
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> The intent is proxied through Rule 2328, which has power 2.
>
> We've previously determined that the rules aren't an agreement. Is
> Agora as a whole? Does Agora count as having been "published"?
The requirement is that the
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
> > The intent is proxied through Rule 2328, which has power 2.
>
> We've previously determined that the rules aren't an agreement. Is
> Agora as a whole? Does Agora count as having been "published"?
The "are the rules an agreement?" qu
Pavitra wrote:
> The intent is proxied through Rule 2328, which has power 2.
We've previously determined that the rules aren't an agreement. Is
Agora as a whole? Does Agora count as having been "published"?
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Pavitra wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 07:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> > On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
> >>> ENDORSE AGORA
> >>
> >> Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
> >> for something like
On 07/08/2011 02:41 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Pavitra wrote:
>
>> On 07/08/2011 01:38 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> scshunt wrote:
>>>
On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> 7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
>> ENDORSE AGORA
>
> Given recent proposals, and the past use of "
Pavitra wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 01:38 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> scshunt wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> 7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
> ENDORSE AGORA
Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
for something like "
On 07/08/2011 01:38 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
> 7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
ENDORSE AGORA
>>>
>>> Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
>>> for something like "if F>A then F else if A>F
scshunt wrote:
> On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
>>> ENDORSE AGORA
>>
>> Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
>> for something like "if F>A then F else if A>F then A else P", I'm
>> interpreting this as ineffe
On 07/07/2011 07:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
>>> ENDORSE AGORA
>>
>> Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
>> for something like "if F>A then F else if A>F then A else P", I'm
>> in
On 07/07/11 17:06, Ed Murphy wrote:
7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
ENDORSE AGORA
Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
for something like "if F>A then F else if A>F then A else P", I'm
interpreting this as ineffective due to lack of clarity.
A
>> 7098 1.7 omd     Victory case changes
> JE NE SAIS PAS
This is French for "I do not know". I'm interpreting it as ineffective.
>> 7101 3  Pavitra   Submitting Promises
> ENDORSE AGORA
Given recent proposals, and the past use of "endorse Agora" as shorthand
for something like "i
On 07/06/2011 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> FOR, but it's ineffective since Agora isn't a person, isn't it?
Rules 2328 and 2339 together seem to imply that it is.
16 matches
Mail list logo
