From arj@nvg.org Wed Nov 08 11:10:49 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ghsoo-0001RY-1J for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:10:47 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CCB9478A for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:45:48 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:45:47 +0100 (CET) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Lojban at Philcon In-Reply-To: <455222E8.8080409@lojban.org> Message-ID: References: <20061103224551.GI13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <454BCD8A.2090306@lojban.org> <454D271D.4040903@lojban.org> <454F8195.6050507@lojban.org> <20061106184455.GZ13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <4551C431.6030304@lojban.org> <455222E8.8080409@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 241 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >>>> I like to think my reasons in this case are pretty damned good, >>>> though. >>> >>> Jay and Arnt haven't spoken, and no one seems to be chairing this >>> meeting at the moment. >> >> Sorry. There must have been a misunderstanding here. It is my >> understanding that: >> a) I am chairing the meeting. > > I know. You just seemed to disappear. It might have been innocuous, but it > seemed to me like Matt needed a decision within a day or two, and the chair > was silent. Now he has it, I hope. I apologise for any distress caused by my lack of attention. >> b) Having seen no objections to the proposal in a reasonable amount of >> time, the spending may be considered approved. > > If that is your ruling, I have no problem. But if you want it to be > "considered approved" without your explicit ruling that there has been a > reasonable amount of time, we need to know how much time you define as being > "considered reasonable". Granted. I'll do my best to give explicit deadlines the next time. >> Also, I did speak, and I voted in favour of spending money for the junior >> suite. > > I didn't see that. I saw your comment on the 4th saying you thought that the > junior suite was preferable to the mezzanine, but it seemed to be worded as a > statement of discussion and not a vote. Ah. There must be some cultural differences here, I believe. In all boards I've been a member of locally, everything is passed by acclamation, unless someone explicitly asks for a vote. In the interest of clarity, I will try to always be explicit about my intention to vote. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Keyboard: The Ultimate Input Device