From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Mar 31 13:39:00 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx4gl-0006R6-RR for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:38:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:38:59 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: NEW VOTE: Motion to amend Message-ID: <20100331203859.GU6084@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20100331171330.GL6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100331172850.GK3000@nvg.org> <20100331173055.GO6084@digitalkingdom.org> <4BB3947C.5070409@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BB3947C.5070409@lojban.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-archive-position: 647 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 Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:29:16PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 07:28:50PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen > >wrote: > > > >>On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:13:30AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> > >>>I move to amend my previous motion to read as follows: > >>> > >>> The LLG board will immediately, publically apologize to Remod > >>> for dropping the ball (I'd like to do this, please). > >>> > >>> Further, in direct contravention of previous policy, the LLG > >>> will publically post our master copy of the CLL, and request > >>> to Remod that he apply his corrections to that, making in > >>> effect a new master copy, to be approved by the BPFK as such > >>> and posted to the website after said approval. > >> > >>I second this amendment. > >> > >>I initially had reservations about the second part, since asking > >>Remod to do work for us after we obstructed his PDF could come > >>across as an insult. > > Did we actually obstruct it? Broca pulled it from lojban.org > I was under the impression that we had > merely indecisively ignored it. > > >> But I trust Robin to be able to find a > >>wording that is suitable to the situation. > > > > > >As before, I'm calling that two votes. Bob? Matt? > > For the amended version, I vote yes. Fantastic; that's unanimous. Can you (Bob) please email me the .docx ? -Robin