On 14 Jun 2006, Don Armstrong said:
[Snipping away stuff that needs more thought to reply to]
>> Well, I am not sure. ยง4.2.2.2 means that such a decision by the DPL
>> can be immediately put on hold, well before any funds are
>> committed. I don't see how delaying decisions to authorize or
>> u
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Err, Would Evil DPL actually pay that much attention to the
> constitution?
Probably not, but who would hold them to the constitution?
Or would the constitution be rewritten to match DPL actions
after they've been actively working against its
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2006, Don Armstrong said:
> > My fear is that some newly founded organization is veted by some
> > future Evil DPL, assets are transfered and dispersed wihtout
> > allowing some lead time for people to examine the situtation.
>
> what is eno
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The DPL could 'unvet' the first one and then vet the second one. [...]
Even if it was vetted and failed, it was still vetted, unless there's
time travel. I suggest that the vetting limit wouldn't make sense.
> The point of the exercise is to avoid hav
4 matches
Mail list logo
