On Sep 15, 2016, at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I'm vaguely remembering a precedent that said "an announcement clearly > for one thing is not to be interpreted as an announcement for something > else". > > For example, it's pretty clear that people reply to a Proposal > distribution with a single word like this, and it works, or at least it > hasn't been questioned: > >> [From Promotor's message] Proposal XXXX > FOR > > however, not every instance of the word FOR is taken as a vote, in > particular, if context is placed around it (like ais523's sentence) > it disqualifies it from being the vote, as it clearly not a notice > for voting but rather something else. > > [I'm playing Devil's advocate here with a vague memory of a precedent, > in case someone else remembers it too; I'm not particularly convinced > with my argument, and that ballot rule definitely needs a fix]. I plan on holding my ballot rule proposal until Alexis passes judgement. I want to see what the rationale is in the somewhat unlikely outcome that Alexis judges the statement FALSE, first. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
