Index ← 3644 CFJ 3645 3646 → text
===============================  CFJ 3645  ===============================

      G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and


Caller:                        Aris

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by Aris:                                   20 Jun 2018 19:17:20
Assigned to PSS:                                  24 Jun 2018 21:48:55
PSS Recused:                                      01 Aug 2018 03:38:12
Assigned to Corona:                               01 Aug 2018 03:38:12
Corona Recused:                                   26 Aug 2018 19:01:15
Assigned to V.J. Rada:                            26 Aug 2018 19:01:15
V.J. Rada Recused:                                01 Oct 2018 03:01:21
Assigned to Murphy:                               01 Oct 2018 03:01:21
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                            01 Oct 2018 03:22:26


Caller's Arguments:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM ais523 wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including
>> > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule):
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size-
>> > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of
>> > ruleset publication.  I don't want to add to any confusion in case
>> > the rulesets bounce from BUS.
>> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to
>> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a
>> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL
>> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different.
>> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't
>> it's probably because of your disclaimer.
> I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that 
> purpose. A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information,
> whether they want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that
> purpose, as long as the text on the other end is labeled as a report,
> and has all required information.


Gratuitous arguments by G.:

Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the
link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen
it.  Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the
only evidence.

I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could
cross-reference my message timing to commit timing.

Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means
actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases
that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions,
where outside references work because the specification is like this:
   "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it"

for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual
announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that
has a clear specification.

So this would work:  "I do as in link X"  -> [link X] "I support" because
e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an
announced verb/context doesn't do the trick.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

I accept the caller's arguments and judge TRUE.

While G. correctly points out that verifying non-tampering may be a
non-trivial technical exercise, I trust that someone has done it by now
in this case (having had ample time to do so). Also, neither the report
rules nor the definition of "publishing" depend on how easy it is to
perform such verification. How easy would it be to verify that the
Distributor hasn't tampered with a mailing list and/or its web archives?