Wooble 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".
It's only "stupid" when taking contract-defined shorthand into account, which is a non-trivial stretch from the original idea of conditional votes with an explicitly-stated condition. Even then, one could reasonably argue that knowledge of the contract-defined shorthand is implicitly allowed, in the same way that knowledge of standard English is implicitly allowed.
