<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment
- From: "Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:10:14 -0000
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acg87HX+nkgW8CkNTwOWEqNvevQLnAAFi7jg
- Thread-topic: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment
Bob,
I went through the string, and here is what I saw.
Ross - Moved - 12/7 9:51pm
Tom Barrett - Seconded - 12/10 11:32am
Jordi Hinojosa - Seconded - 12/10 11:54am
Peter Stevenson - Seconded - 12/10 4:39pm
Rob Hall - Seconded - 12/11 12:12pm
I believe these emails were all clear seconds or endorsements of the
motion.
I do not believe in reading into a person's "comments" that they endorse
or not based on simply giving an opinion without a clear endorsement or
second.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 12:38 PM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion on Travel Funding - Friendly Amendment
At 05:11 PM 12/11/2007 Tuesday +0000, Rob Hall wrote:
>I will endorse Ross's motion to get the ball rolling on a formal
>discussion period.
Dear Rob and others: There has been so much flashing back and forth on
this subject, I don't really know how many endorsements we have at this
point. Some of the comments *could_be* considered as endorsements.
Can we please review the bidding on this hand?
Regards, BobC
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|