comex wrote: >============================== CFJ 1688 ============================== > > Murphy is the author of Proposal 4939. > >======================================================================== ... >Unlike Proposal 4963 (see CFJ 1655), the only difference between what >I submitted and what the Promotor distributed is that some whitespace >slipped into the middle of a word. I argue that this difference does >not create an ambiguity in meaning, thus it constituted a distribution >of my proposal (see CFJ 1669).
The judge should note that in subsequent discussion Murphy changed eir mind on the last point: because the extra whitespace results in a different rule text, proposal 4963 was *not* a distribution of the proposal that e had submitted. E then judged CFJ 1669 accordingly. Per CFJ 1656, proposal 4963 was therefore a never-submitted proposal created by the act of its (illegal) distribution. These facts don't lead inexorably to any particular judgement of CFJ 1688; they leave the question of authorship open. The judge may wish to address the question of whether "author" and "proposer" are synonymous (as applied to proposals), to avoid requiring another CFJ concerning the latter term. -zefram
