On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, comex wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> Proposal: More ID numbers (AI=2, Distributable via fee) > > > > Does this mean you just paid the fee? That looks like CFJ-worthy > > ambiguity there... > > Yeah, by the letter of it I'm not sure it's possible to make a > proposal Distributable before submitting it (and writing out its text > in full), so I initially included my fee-paying at the end of the > proposal.
I think we've always been ok with "I submit the following proposal and pay a fee to make it distributable:" and there was some court case a long time ago that it was ok. Maybe not. It was the fact that your sentence no verb: are you saying this statement could be made distributable via fee, that you intend to do so, or that you are doing so? This is the first time I've noticed the shorthand being this ambiguous (to me). > > Do you think this over-inflates proposal ID numbers with ones that are > > submitted than retracted? If I submit one to the pool, then 10 minutes > > later notice a flaw and retract and re-submit, does the promotor still > > (after the fact) have to assign number to the old one? This is a fairly > > common occurrence. > > > > Maybe a middle ground is "proposals that are distributed or a player > > announces intent to adopt" get ID numbers. > > I don't think it's common enough to make a significant difference, and > it's rather unusual IMO that proposals in the Proposal Pool have to be > referred to by title when just about every other tracked body of text > has an ID number. I'm curious as to the Promotor's opinion here. H. Promotor Wooble, any thoughts on it? -G.
