On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 12:30 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > 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".
I don't think it was a stupid criterion for the intended use of the rule. The idea was presumably to allow simple conditional votes such as "FOR if proposal 5400 passed" or whatever, which are indeed just based on published information. Basing it on contracts doesn't seem to have been an intended use-case of that rule, and IIRC the Vote Market was the first contract to try to define a new complex vote. -- ais523
