On 6/24/2020 7:51 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> >> >> I object to any and all intents to declare apathy. > > But does this adequately identify the intents being objected to? > > (I think there might have been a CFJ along those lines in the past.) >
It's been used regularly for a long time and there's old CFJs. I remember judging one around, er, before 2010 anyway, but my judgement was just citing older ones, I'll go look (don't remember enough context to find it instantly). But just on general principles I don't see why it wouldn't there aren't particularly strong specificity about supporting/objecting such that "all of [a reasonably well-defined class of intent]" wouldn't do the trick. In fact, R2124, using the "publicly posted" as a method descriptor instead of "by announcement", bypasses *any* explicit standard for clarity or specificity. (I remember saying something in the CFJ like that it makes sense for there to be a lower standard, because it's better to error on the side of caution when proposing the intent, but to error on the side of inclusiveness during the supporting/objecting). On that note: We added "without obfuscation" and "conspicuously" to the dependency intent requirements in R2595 last year. IMO an intent that clearly hides the *message* (i.e. designed to trigger spam filters) would count as "an obfuscation" and/or not be "conspicuous", anyway. -G.
