Yes, that is in fact exactly what I argue in the judgement to CFJ 3724. :P

I expect D. Margaux meant something like "its outcome, _if resolved now_, would 
be ADOPTED". I imagine e would have resubmitted it with that wording, after 
realising that the initial wording was wrong, if it hadn't become apparent that 
the error in the ADoP report completely ruled out eir Win by Paradox anyway.

-twg


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, March 9, 2019 3:36 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:

> On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
>
> > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is
> > the Assessor.
>
> Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's
> outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the
> decision.
>
> Is "outcome" a well-defined property of a decision before it's
> resolved? Rule 955 specifies some rules about computing the outcome,
> and we could try to apply those rules before it's resolved to compute
> a provisional "outcome" (even if the voting period hasn't ended, based
> on the ballots cast so far). But Rule 955 also says "The outcome of a
> decision is determined when it is resolved", which seems to imply that
> the outcome is not determined before it's resolved. If that's true,
> Proposal 8164's outcome could not have been ADOPTED, for the simple
> reason that nobody had attempted to resolve the decision and so the
> outcome must have been undetermined at that point.


Reply via email to