Ok folks, first of all, this is *quite* suspicious, so it's worth our
time to hunt down which one twg is worried about.
Secondly, there is a standing precedent for this working - I'll dig
it up later, but the point is - no effort required - no one is
required to look anything up until someone attempts to perform an
action.
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one intent
> to perform a dependent action."
>
> Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ 1460, an
> action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort" is not required
> to determine what the action is. To determine exactly what actions G. took
> here, one would need to carefully read each of the messages sent to the
> public fora in the last 14 days, forming a list of the intents to perform
> dependent actions in those messages (including any and all inconspicuous or
> obfuscated such intents), and evaluate which of those meet the criteria
> listed in G.'s message. I believe this is "unreasonably excessive".
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > I vote AGAINST proposals 8105 and 8107.
> > > I vote FOR proposals 8106, 8108, 8109 and 8110.
> >
> > hmmm on 8107 vote there.
> >
> > I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections
> > (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other
> > than myself in the last 14 days.
> >
> > (I don't think this catches anything legit, but if so lmk and
> > I'll remove my objection).
>
>
>
