[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion - Proposed Constitution - voting part 2



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I don't think it's required by the constitution... however, I've set the system
up so that PGP can (and I prefer...) be used...  Infact, it WILL be turned on
for the constitutional vote unless someone from on high tells me not to.  The
test CFV the announcement was forgotten so I turned the PGP check off.

On 27-Sep-98 Adam P. Harris wrote:
> 
> I note that there is no discussion of PGP (gpg?) signing of replies.
> Is this required?  If not, why not?  If so, we ought to make a note of
> that in the CFV announcement.

- ----------------------------------
http://benham.net/index.html
- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d+(-) s:+ a29 C++$ UL++>++++ P+++$ L++>++++ E? W+++$ N+(-) o? K-
w+++$(--) O M-- V- PS-- PE++ Y++ PGP++ t+ 5 X R+ !tv b++++ DI+++ D++
G++>G+++ e h+ r* y+
- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
- ----------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBNg7BC7bps1lIfUYBAQGVpQP8DXI7FiJuWBz59cSw4c67DYiXm+NvBCqQ
saQus0Zr2szsWmt+9EZUiFZM5dLAstd+zCSUaOgej+1xHsMa9u7MC7a6uA4TSInL
5D2RKXEIQ2wv0zhBRZaGexuzrYzTq7UB0dvM7z6cey6GBFEFAlhyfb+d4tT3GtFq
6bXtMNueYp0=
=jl36
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: