Kerim Aydin wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: Intents to perform multiple dependent > actions were announced in the first message in the Evidence section, > and each intent was resolved and made each Proposal in the Proposal Pool > (at the time of resolution) distributable.
Arguments: The specification for any given dependent action must be clear and unamibiguous. This does not mean that a dependent action taken as part of a larger set of actions is necessarily invalid due to ambiguity existing in the larger set. Compare and contrast with Rule Changes, which must be entirely unambiguous to take any effect. As a result, any dependent actions to make Proposals made after the intent may be ambiguous, but the ones before should not be. I disfavor this case (I really don't want to go look through the archives to find the situation of things).
