From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sat Oct 06 15:42:53 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IeIMG-0002Yp-Av for llg-board@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:42:53 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 15:42:52 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Immediate Action Needed on CLL Shipping Message-ID: <20071006224252.GM11557@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20070722191247.GA26253@digitalkingdom.org> <46B8E7B2.4060405@lojban.org> <20070807214749.GB26253@digitalkingdom.org> <46B8EF16.20507@lojban.org> <20070807230923.GG26253@digitalkingdom.org> <46B92503.2040408@lojban.org> <20070808171628.GL26253@digitalkingdom.org> <4706B491.8010909@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-archive-position: 336 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 08:14:32AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > On 10/5/07, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 10:05:55PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > > > > >>Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >> > > >>>On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:15:50PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier > > >>>wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>Given that I'm just going to vote to do whatever you say, can I > > >>>>>stop reading at this point? > > >>>> > > >>>>Fine, but note that I gave ***you*** an option to make a > > >>>>friendly amendment to offer an intermediate rate for Mexico > > >>>>halfway between the Canada rate and the rest of the world, > > >>>>depending on how much work it would take, given the exactly one > > >>>>order that I think we've ever gotten from Mexico. Otherwise > > >>>>they pay the higher rate. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>It's no (additional) work at all on my end; how much is it on > > >>>yours? > > >> > > >>None. If they pay for Mexico and they live in Mexico, I don't > > >>worry about how much they paid. > > >> > > >>If this means you propose the friendly amendment, I accept. > > > > My motion was proposed almost 2 months ago, and there appears to have > > been no objection, but there has also been no vote, and no rate increase > > I notice that the Mexico option was added to the website, but my > > original motion was made because the other shipping costs no longer > > covered costs. > > > > I just sent 3 books overseas with postage costs higher than what we > > collected. Both UPS books also exceeded in costs what we charged for > > shipping, even though they were fairly close destinations. Can we have a > > vote on my motion or a declaration that it is approved and needs to be > > implemented? > > > > lojbab > > > > > I second Bob's motion and vote in favor of it. Having heard no objections, and since I'm filling in for Arnt this weekend (he's got no net access for a couple of days) I summarily declare Bob's proposal, plus the friendly ammendment, approved by acclamation. If someone thinks I'm out of order, speak up. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/