Index ← 1112 CFJ 1113 1114 → text
==========================================================================
                               CFJ 1113

  Morendil has not submitted the proposal titled "Ruleset Lite, II".

==========================================================================

Called by:           Kolja A.

Judge:               Macross
Judgement:           TRUE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Andre, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, 
		     lee, Macross, Murphy, Peekee, Steve

Not eligible:
Caller:              Kolja A.
Barred:              Morendil, General Chaos
Had their turn:      Ørjan
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             -

==========================================================================

History:

  Called by Kolja A.:                      Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:03:33 +0100 
  Assigned to Macross:                     Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:08:09 +1100
  Judged TRUE by Macross:                  Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:21:00 -0500
  Judgement published:                     as of this message

==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:

The first submission of the proposal failed because the email with the
proposal did not reach the public forum, it seems.

Now Morendil and Scott argue that Morendil effectively submitted the
proposal when e later sent a mail to the PF (successfully) that quoted
the full text of the original mail in which Morendil had tried to (but
failed) to submit the proposal. This second mail, quoting the first,
is seen as a valid submission.

I disagree, and don't think that Morendil's (re-)post of the proposal
was a submission. The repost contained the text of the proposal marked
clearly as a quotation of an earlier email document, and the intent of
the repost containing the proposal text was to provide evidence that
the proposal had already been properly submitted earlier. So I do not
think the text reposted by Morendil was delivered "with the clear
indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal", and
therefore it was not a proposal as defined in R1483.

==========================================================================
Judge's Arguments:

I hereby return a Judgement of TRUE.

In my opinion, Morendil's quoting of the message by which he attempted
to submit the Proposal does not constitute a Proposal.  The text was
clearly quoted for purposes of making clear what message he was
referring to as having not made it to the PF.  Thus it fails to meet the
requirements of R1483 as there was no "clear indication that that text
is intended to become a Proposal."

-Macross
==========================================================================
Evidence attached by the CotC:

----- 1. Morendil's message
----- 2. Rule 1483/4

----- 1. Morendil's message

From: "Laurent Bossavit" < lauren-@netdive.com >
To:  agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:31:43 +0100

>     Chuck and Morendil are guilty of Failure to Propose.

Hmm... not. This is a COE; I sent the following, but apparently it 
got lost at some point...

From: "Laurent Bossavit" < lauren-@netdive.com >
To:  agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 17:09:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Proposal : Ruleset Lite, II
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a)

H. Promotor, please note; I hereby submit the following Proposal.

Proposal
---
Ruleset Lite, II

Rule 1643 (Statements of Policy) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1623 (Disinterested Proposals) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1723 (Sanity) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1724 (Urgent Proposals) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1792 (Proposal Applications) shall be Repealed.
Rule 651 (Heroes) shall be Repealed.
Rule 840 (The Scamster) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1047 (Patent Title of Zeitgeist) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1528 (Organizations) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1614 (Organization's Names) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1621 (Organization's SLCs) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1531 (Administrators and Their Duties) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1630 (Impersonation) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1547 (Some Organizations Can Vote) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1759 (Organizational Payment Orders) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1533 (Application to Create an Organization) shall be Repealed.
Rule 1397 (Dissolution of Organizations) shall be Repealed. Rule 1617
(Changing the Jurisdiction of an Organization's SLC) shall be
Repealed. Rule 1458 (The Notary) shall be Repealed. Rule 717 (Public
Organization Report) shall be Repealed. Rule 766 (Groups) shall be
Repealed. Rule 716 (How to Form a Group) shall be Repealed. Rule 719
(Joining a Group) shall be Repealed. Rule 721 (The Vizier and the
Oridnanacekeepor) shall be Repealed. Rule 1752 (Group Votes) shall be
Repealed. Rule 718 (Resignation from a Group) shall be Repealed. Rule
1446 (Contests) shall be Repealed. Rule 1538 (Regulations and
Membership of Contests) shall be Repealed.

Consistency : Rule 833 shall be amended by replacing the words "an
Interested Proposal" with "a Proposal". Rule 1678 shall be amended by
replacing the words "an Interested Proposal" with "a Proposal". Rule
1047 shall be amended by replacing the words "an Interested Proposal"
with "a Proposal".

---

I've caved in - this only repeals "serious" Rules. The really boring
ones, IOW.;)

=================================================================
Laurent Bossavit
CTO                                      
NetDIVE 
CallSite Call Button: http://www.netdive.com/laurent.htm
Paris Offices
01 44 64 89 12 - daytime phone
01 44 64 88 91 - fax, voice mail
--------------------------------     
http://www.netdive.com/
Leading Java client/server systems for Web based communication
=================================================================


----- 2. Rule 1483/4

Rule 1483/4 (Power=1)
Definition of Proposals

      A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some
      collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication
      that that text is intended to become a Proposal.  The collection
      of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing
      Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is
      said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.

      The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was
      Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that
      text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear
      indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a
      prior Proposal.  In this case, the Proposing Entity must
      specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a
      duplicate of an existing Proposal.

      Further, the Promotor's distribution of previously undistributed
      Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.

==========================================================================