On Mon, 18 May 2015, Sprocklem wrote: > On 2015-05-18 12:40, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 16:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 May 2015, Luis Ressel wrote: > >>> You, on the other hand, only wrote "Proposal: [...]". I've accepted > >>> such submissions in the past, but I'm not sure if I actually have to > >>> (or even can). Furthermore, in your case, the "Proto:" in the subject > >>> line did add further ambiguousity. > >> > >> Someone a while ago, on a CFJ, found that saying "Proposal: ..." is > >> clear enough to cause to submit. However, it has tripped people up > >> several times since then, so maybe evidence since then is that it > >> *isn't* clear. The "Proto" certainly aids the case. -G. > > > > For what it's worth, I interpreted it as unambiguously a proposal > > submission (if possibly an unintentional one). > > I, on the other hand, would consider it ambiguous. The "Proto:" caused > me to not even consider that it was an actual proposal submission (until > the point was raised).
I personally read the subject line and thought "proto". Caveat: Sometimes I'm a Moron in a Hurry.
