On Sun, 21 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Yally wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Sean Hunt<ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote: >>>>> Maybe this is not applicable, but in the past I have announced an >>>>> intent to deregister a player before 3 months had passes and then >>>>> resolved the action after 3 months had passed. >>>> It is hardly applicable. >>>> >>> Well it is similar in that in that in the example I have given I >>> couldn't perform the action but I could announce an intent. I do not >>> see why flipping a proposal's distributability should be any >>> different. >> >> In your example, the nature of the intended action is clear at the >> time intent is announced. "I intend to make distributable a proposal >> that I'll publish three days from now" fails this test; a more >> interesting test case would be "I intend to make distributable a >> proposal with the same text as the proto I published last week". > > Well if you said "I intend, without objection, to make the next > proposal I submit distributable" you would be unambiguously referring > to exactly one proposal.
Maybe, but in this case, (1) if the announcement was taken to pertain to the future, comex was referring to an unspecified and unknown number of proposals therefore an uncertain number of dependent actions; (2) it's not clear from the announcement whether comex *intended* such future proposal to count; did e mean "each proposal that is in the pool now"? or "all of those, plus more that might come later"? -G.
