Re: expiry announcement
So Go ahead and fork^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Never mind, you're already
On 9 Nov 2000, John Goerzen wrote:
> I am of very mixed feelings about this announcement.
> "Darren O. Benham" <email@example.com> writes:
> > Per section A.5 ("Expiry") of the constitution, both John Goerzen's General
> > Resolution regarding non-free, and Anthony Towns's amendment thereto, have
> > expired. The recent vote was conducted in error, and its ballots are
> > hereby voided and the results have not been tabulated.
> On the one hand, I am glad that you are, finally, following the
> However, by the same token, I am EXTREMELY concerned and VERY unhappy
> that YOUR own IRRRESPONSIBILITY and flagrant disregard of your duties,
> responsibilities, and the Constitution have put us in this mess.
> THE ONLY REASON IT EXPIRED WAS DUE TO YOUR OWN IRRESPONSIBILITY OR
> PERSONAL BIAS.
> I feel it is extremely disconcerting that our Secretary has the power
> to kill any resolution he doesn't like simply by appearing to be gone
> (whether he is or not). Furthermore, I find it even more surprising
> that the Secretary did not feel that the amendment had expired prior
> to conducting the vote, but after he has the results of the vote,
> feels differently.
> Finally, this pattern of ignorance, irresponsibility, or whatever you
> want to call it is continuing in that both Branden's and Manoj's
> proposals have ALSO been ignored in a similar fashion.
> I think it may be time to investigate the possibility of replacing the
> Secretary with a more responsible person, and furthermore, to amend
> the Constitution to remove from the Secretary the ability to
> single-handedly kill any GR that he doesn't like or doesn't feel
> warrants his time.
FINE, I take it back: UNfuck you!
Who is John Galt? firstname.lastname@example.org, that's who!