On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:51 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > > > governed by this in R478: > > > > > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > > > >> and clearly specifying the action > > > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as > a > > > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines > what > > > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation > > announcement > > > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > > > > > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > > > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than > the > > > creation and specifications being separate? > > > > > > -- > > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the > > mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a > > proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following > other > > attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. > > > I think the "and" implies that the two actions are linked. It would be > useful, however, to know how strong a linkage different forms (participles > vs conjunctions, "and" vs "and then", etc) create. > > -Aris > > -Aris > > > > > > I think all of this discussion is advisory because this CFJ deals with a more clearly atomic action and the finer points of ambiguity (in ways that nobody would ever actually create a proposal) can be safely left for another day. -- >From R. Lee
