Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:Sat 3 Nov 17:35:00 pikhq -1B Proposal 5269 rejected (no R to lose)As previously noted, proposal 5269 was not submitted by pikhq. It was in fact never submitted at all, but was a corruption of a proposal that pikhq submitted (and later withdrew). Proposal 5269 would have substantially different effect, if adopted, from pikhq's actual proposal. Per CFJs 1655 and 1688, pikhq is not the author of proposal 5269, and should not be penalised for its failure.
Does this mean that you are the author of Proposal 5269?
