From xod@thestonecutters.net Wed Feb 26 13:03:52 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 26 Feb 2003 21:03:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 87213 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 21:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 26 Feb 2003 21:03:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 21:03:51 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18o8iU-0002eu-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:03:50 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18o8iK-0002eM-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:03:40 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:03:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18o8iD-0002dS-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:03:33 -0800 Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1QL3XQ57930 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:03:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:03:33 -0500 (EST) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Nick will be with you shortly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030226155817.S53713-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 4165 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Craig wrote: > >IIRC, nobody, except possibly Nick, has an individual power of veto. > > My recollection had been that every BPFK member had a veto. We're using "unanimity minus one". One veto gets ignored, but two blocks the action. > >a talent for it), & if it gives rise to more questions & discussion then > that > >will end up as a recapitulation of debates that already happened on > >Jboske. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but if it is allowed to, then > > If a thing has already been discussed on jboske, then it ought to be > sufficient for someone to post a summary of that. Ah, you flatter jboske! > >we must accept that BF is a longhaul operation, rather than something > >that should have been over by May. > > Oh, I'm sure. But it would be better to ONLY patch genuine problems with the > language, but patch them slowly, than to fix everything anyone dislikes. We're relying on the judicious votes of cooler heads such as yourself. -- Seventy-two city councils, including Philadelphia, Austin, Chicago, Baltimore and Cleveland have passed anti-war resolutions.