On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does > > > that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal > > > 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. > > > Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think > > > that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): > > > > It was a blanket vote for. > > All such blanket votes are administrative conveniences for individual votes > for proposals. Any statement that is taken as applying a vote to a proposal > must specify (and thereby acknowledge) that proposal, otherwise the vote > would > fail. -G.
Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be interpreted as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of indirection" argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use for decisions to adopt proposals. -G.
