Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam...
From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 13:46:49 PDT
- Next message: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Previous message: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... (fwd)"
- In reply to: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Next in thread: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Reply: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Stephen Turner wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote:
> >
> > Come to think of it, this seems like an awful lot of power to give a
> > judge. Hasn't this feature been abused in the past? May I suggest altering
> > RO # 10 to declare the official committee forum as a specific mailing
> > list? Either the one we're using, or the new one if we go that route.
>
> Is this a formal proposal? :-)
No, not yet. I want to see how people feel about amending the regular
ordinances in this way before I propose it. FRC seems to have operated for
quite a while with no officially santioned email list, so it may not be
something people want to specify in the ROs.
--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
--
Rule Date: 2003-04-11 20:47:09 GMT
- Next message: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Previous message: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby): "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... (fwd)"
- In reply to: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Next in thread: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Reply: Stephen Turner: "Re: Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
[ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST