Index ← 1779 CFJ 1780 1781 → text
==============================  CFJ 1780  ==============================

    proposal 5269 was not submitted by pikhq, and it was instead
    authored by the Promoter.


Caller:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by pikhq:                        04 Nov 2007 21:46:04 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     04 Nov 2007 21:54:00 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 07 Nov 2007 17:47:50 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

pikhq's submitted proposal did not match the text given
for proposal 5269. Per CFJ 1655 and 1688, pikhq is not the author of
this proposal.
        Murphy, the Promoter, had included a different text for this
proposal, and therefore e, by common sense, is the author of this
proposal with *is* text.


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

The text that was distributed as proposal 5269 differs from what pikhq
submitted by adding the initial line "I make the following proposal:"
(which in pikhq's message preceded eir proposal).  My interpretation is
that this line being inside a proposal means that the proposal would,
if adopted, submit the text that follows this line as a new proposal.
This has since been done (with more explicit wording) by proposal 5286,
which is the author of a proposal currently in the pool.  There has been
no public objection to this interpretation of proposals 5269 and 5286.
Thus proposal 5269 differs radically *in meaning* from what pikhq

Per CFJ 1669, a purported distribution of a proposal is effective if
and only if what is distributed has exactly the same meaning as what was
submitted.  In this case it does not, so proposal 5269 is not the same
proposal as that which pikhq submitted.  Per CFJ 1656 the distribution is
nevertheless a valid proposal distribution.  Proposal 5269 is a proposal,
effectively created by the act of distribution.

Authorship of a proposal so created has been addressed before, by
CFJ 1688.  In that case the only difference between the proposals
submitted and distributed was the resulting "address(es)" (one word,
submitted version) versus "address (es)" (two words, distributed version)
in rule text.  This textual difference doesn't change the meaning of the
text in which it is embedded, so had this been part of the proposal's
direct (unquoted) text then the distributed proposal would have been
ruled to be the same proposal as what was submitted.  As it was in new
rule text, however, the resulting difference in rule text, however slight,
constituted a change in meaning of the proposal.  CFJ 1688 (as I interpret
it; the judgement is not entirely clear) took the nuanced position that
the overall change in meaning was so slight that the authorship of the
submitted proposal did carry over to the distributed proposal.

The converse of the CFJ 1688 judgement is that where manglement of a
proposal alters fundamental aspects of a proposal then authorship is not
preserved.  This standard is a reasonable one.  It means that a proposer
will not be denied eir authorship rights due to relatively inconsequential
errors in proposal processing, yet a proposer will also not be penalised
for errors by the promotor that do not reflect eir intent.

This is the standard that the promotor has in fact followed, since
the judgement of CFJ 1688, in eir proposal database.  Of the five
distributed-but-not-submitted proposals since the beginning of 2006 and
prior to proposal 5269, four are listed as retaining the authorship of
the proposals they are based on (4875 from 5184, 4876 from 5185, 4939
from 5019, 4957 from 4952).  One is listed as not (4963); this proposal
was composed of the text of two submitted proposals plus metadata that
had appeared between them in submission.

Applying that standard to this case: the submitted proposal has the
fundamental meaning of amending rule 1922 to define a new patent title and
awarding one instance of that patent title.  The distributed proposal has
the fundamental meaning of submitting a proposal.  These are so radically
different that the distributed proposal utterly fails to preserve the
authorial intent of the submitted proposal.  pikhq is therefore not the
author of proposal 5269.

It remains to determine whether the promotor is the author of proposal
5269.  While it is the promotor's act of distribution that created the
proposal, distribution is not generally regarded as a means to author
a proposal.  The promotor certainly does not expect or intend to create
proposals this way.  I find therefore that there is no authorial intent
on the part of the promotor.  E cannot become a proposal author by
virtue of eir mechanical errors.  (This would be different if a promotor
*intentionally* distributed an unsubmitted proposal.)

I therefore find that proposal 5269 has no author.  CFJ 1780 is FALSE.