From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.Syr.Edu)
Date: Tue May 28 2002 - 12:27:19 PDT
"Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre_at_oslp.com> writes: > It appears to be implicitly required by RO8: > 8. Restrictions on Judge's Power. The decision of the Judge may be > changed if a proposal is made to do so and that proposal > receives a two-thirds affirmative vote of the members voting on > that proposal within three (3) days after the posting of that > proposal. > > This appears to require that rulings must be altered by proposal. But > if everyone concurs with your interpretation of the ROs, that will make > things easier. I'd be more impressed with this argument if instead of the word "if" RO8 had the phrase "if and only if". As for the timeout rule, it addresses only situations in which the judge has made no declaration -- I don't see its relevance. But I see no harm in this proposal, even if it purports to establish an authority which already exists: At least it makes that authority explicit. I vote FOR it. -- - Rich Holmes Syracuse, NY -- Rule Date: 2002-05-28 19:27:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST