comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2664 >> >> =================== �CFJ 2664 (Interest Index = 2) �==================== >> >> � �The Ambassador has a weekly report >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � BobTHJ >> >> Judge: � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �c. >> Judgement: >> >> ======================================================================== >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> The Ambassador is required to track Recognition, a switch. All >> switches must be reported weekly per R2143, since R2162 doesn't >> specify weekly or monthly tracking. >> >> ======================================================================== > > Is there anyone who think this should not be TRUE?
This is the kind of non-controversial CFJ that my recent proposal tries to address, and that on further reflection probably shouldn't be called in the first place. When one notices something like "hey, the Ambassador's report is actually weekly not monthly", the first course of action should be to point it out to a-d. If one is not certain of the interpretation, then the initial post should be phrased as a question rather than a statement. A CFJ should not occur until at least two people have posted claiming conflicting interpretations; i.e., until the matter is a "matter of controversy" for the CFJ to "settle" (R991). Just my 2zm (or whatever we're up to now).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
