On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 19:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > > I disfavor this case (I really don't want to go look through the > > archives to find the situation of things). > > Me neither necessarily; I think there's a lot in the archives about when > a single announcement can and cannot map to multiple actions. Dependent > actions are stricter by precedent, though maybe not quite as strict as Rule > changes (call it halfway between a typical voting announcement and Rule > changes in that regard maybe). IIRC was it ais523 who wrote the last in- > depth precedent on what "clearly" &tc. means, or possibly comex? It wasn't me, I don't think; I was the last person to scam the lack of "clearly" in the rules, I think, so it would have been inappropriate to assign a resulting CFJ to me.
-- ais523
