On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My point is not that it's true now and needs a fix (though a clarification > is always useful) my point is that it's ridiculous to interpret the *current* > rule as excluding readily-available information (as long as it's *referenced* > at least indirectly by the publication in question). -Goethe
"published during the voting period" seems pretty unambiguous to me, as stupid a criterion as it is. If Rule 478 didn't define what it means to publish something I could be persuaded that readily-available and referenced counts as "published".
