On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > Gratuitous Arguments by comex: > > Would "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted" > suffice? If not (as I read it), "awarding a win to one or more > persons" is part of the format of the announcement, so whatever is > specified in place of 'one or more persons' (as long as the > announcement is actually a win announcement, i.e., correct) is used > for the following text.
Specific followup to this argument based on recent judgement: The following announcements all work to be a win announcement for ALL persons specified as winning in Proposal 6470: "One or more persons has won due to Proposal 6740 being adopted". "comex has won (see Proposal 6470)" [provided comex is in the set, correctly identifying one of the "one or more persons" directly communicates that one or more persons has won]. "Proposal 6470 has been adopted due to these votes. [...] Text of Proposal 6470: [Reasonably-specified nonempty set of persons] has won." These don't work: "Proposal 6740 has been adopted" (no mention of one or more persons winning) "One or more persons has won" (no mention of proposal) "comex has won" (no mention of proposal) This is a borderline case: "Win announcement: proposal 6470 has been adopted." Because it might be implicit in the term "win announcement" that one or more persons has won. But I'd personally say it doesn't satisfy the test of "clearly". -G.
