========================================================================== CFJ 1113 Morendil has not submitted the proposal titled "Ruleset Lite, II". ========================================================================== Called by: Kolja A. Judge: Macross Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Andre, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, lee, Macross, Murphy, Peekee, Steve Not eligible: Caller: Kolja A. Barred: Morendil, General Chaos Had their turn: Ørjan Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: - ========================================================================== History: Called by Kolja A.: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:03:33 +0100 Assigned to Macross: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:08:09 +1100 Judged TRUE by Macross: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:21:00 -0500 Judgement published: as of this message ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: The first submission of the proposal failed because the email with the proposal did not reach the public forum, it seems. Now Morendil and Scott argue that Morendil effectively submitted the proposal when e later sent a mail to the PF (successfully) that quoted the full text of the original mail in which Morendil had tried to (but failed) to submit the proposal. This second mail, quoting the first, is seen as a valid submission. I disagree, and don't think that Morendil's (re-)post of the proposal was a submission. The repost contained the text of the proposal marked clearly as a quotation of an earlier email document, and the intent of the repost containing the proposal text was to provide evidence that the proposal had already been properly submitted earlier. So I do not think the text reposted by Morendil was delivered "with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal", and therefore it was not a proposal as defined in R1483. ========================================================================== Judge's Arguments: I hereby return a Judgement of TRUE. In my opinion, Morendil's quoting of the message by which he attempted to submit the Proposal does not constitute a Proposal. The text was clearly quoted for purposes of making clear what message he was referring to as having not made it to the PF. Thus it fails to meet the requirements of R1483 as there was no "clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal." -Macross ========================================================================== Evidence attached by the CotC: ----- 1. Morendil's message ----- 2. Rule 1483/4 ----- 1. Morendil's message From: "Laurent Bossavit" < lauren-@netdive.com > To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:31:43 +0100 > Chuck and Morendil are guilty of Failure to Propose. Hmm... not. This is a COE; I sent the following, but apparently it got lost at some point... From: "Laurent Bossavit" < lauren-@netdive.com > To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:09:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Proposal : Ruleset Lite, II Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) H. Promotor, please note; I hereby submit the following Proposal. Proposal --- Ruleset Lite, II Rule 1643 (Statements of Policy) shall be Repealed. Rule 1623 (Disinterested Proposals) shall be Repealed. Rule 1723 (Sanity) shall be Repealed. Rule 1724 (Urgent Proposals) shall be Repealed. Rule 1792 (Proposal Applications) shall be Repealed. Rule 651 (Heroes) shall be Repealed. Rule 840 (The Scamster) shall be Repealed. Rule 1047 (Patent Title of Zeitgeist) shall be Repealed. Rule 1528 (Organizations) shall be Repealed. Rule 1614 (Organization's Names) shall be Repealed. Rule 1621 (Organization's SLCs) shall be Repealed. Rule 1531 (Administrators and Their Duties) shall be Repealed. Rule 1630 (Impersonation) shall be Repealed. Rule 1547 (Some Organizations Can Vote) shall be Repealed. Rule 1759 (Organizational Payment Orders) shall be Repealed. Rule 1533 (Application to Create an Organization) shall be Repealed. Rule 1397 (Dissolution of Organizations) shall be Repealed. Rule 1617 (Changing the Jurisdiction of an Organization's SLC) shall be Repealed. Rule 1458 (The Notary) shall be Repealed. Rule 717 (Public Organization Report) shall be Repealed. Rule 766 (Groups) shall be Repealed. Rule 716 (How to Form a Group) shall be Repealed. Rule 719 (Joining a Group) shall be Repealed. Rule 721 (The Vizier and the Oridnanacekeepor) shall be Repealed. Rule 1752 (Group Votes) shall be Repealed. Rule 718 (Resignation from a Group) shall be Repealed. Rule 1446 (Contests) shall be Repealed. Rule 1538 (Regulations and Membership of Contests) shall be Repealed. Consistency : Rule 833 shall be amended by replacing the words "an Interested Proposal" with "a Proposal". Rule 1678 shall be amended by replacing the words "an Interested Proposal" with "a Proposal". Rule 1047 shall be amended by replacing the words "an Interested Proposal" with "a Proposal". --- I've caved in - this only repeals "serious" Rules. The really boring ones, IOW.;) ================================================================= Laurent Bossavit CTO NetDIVE CallSite Call Button: http://www.netdive.com/laurent.htm Paris Offices 01 44 64 89 12 - daytime phone 01 44 64 88 91 - fax, voice mail -------------------------------- http://www.netdive.com/ Leading Java client/server systems for Web based communication ================================================================= ----- 2. Rule 1483/4 Rule 1483/4 (Power=1) Definition of Proposals A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal. The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a duplicate of an existing Proposal. Further, the Promotor's distribution of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals. ==========================================================================