On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 16:27 -0500, Pavitra wrote: > >>> Quite possibly that would violate R101. > >> If it does then so does the 5 CFJ thing > > That's why the wording of R101 clause is as it is; if you're told "you > > can re-initiate on the same subject next week" then you still have > > a reasonable expectation of resolution with minor delay (but still in > > reasonable time). I think there's a precedent on that somewhere? > > On the other hand, if there's a type of CFJ subject that can be refused > > indefinitely, that would violate R101. > > "to resolve matters of controversy". Refusal of a CFJ is within > 101(iii) if it's not actually controversial.
At the moment, it's still possible to set up Gnarly Contracts to /make/ anything you like controversial. My fix proposal for that failed; someone really needs to plug that hole before it's exploited yet again. -- ais523
