On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > AMENDMENT START
> > >
> > > Repl
Frans Pop wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> > proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> > required number of seconds, then this resolution expires and the
> > required number of seconds returns to K."
>
> Alt
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START
>>>
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> > lack
MJ Ray wrote:
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> proposal of a general resolution, without any proposal receiving the
> required number of seconds,
MJ Ray writes:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a year has passed, starting from the
> pro
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:52:43PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> > lack
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 08:43:16AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if a y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With thanks to suggestions from Wouter Verhelst and Russ Allbery, I
present a redrafted amendment. Seeing as none of the proposers have
responded, I ask for seconds. The rationale remains the same: almost
no evidence has been presented for Q or 2Q or
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 02:55:32PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > AMENDMENT START
> > >
> >
MJ Ray writes:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> AMENDMENT START
>>>
>>> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
>>> lack of evidence about the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > AMENDMENT START
> >
> > Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> >
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:37:02PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> AMENDMENT START
>
> Replace "too small" with "thought to be too small, but there is a
> lack of evidence about the correct level".
>
> Replace clause c with "c) if gen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> While one could go and define another arbitary number, like 10 or 15 or
> whatever, I propose to move this to something that is dependent on the
> actual number of Developers, as defined by the secretary, and to
> increase its v
14 matches
Mail list logo
