Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2282a
============================ Appeal 2282a ============================ Panelist: root Decision: Panelist: BobTHJ Decision: Panelist: Wooble Decision: ======================================================================== History: Appeal initiated: 27 Nov 2008 15:32:02 GMT Assigned to root (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to BobTHJ (panelist): (as of this message) Assigned to Wooble (panelist): (as of this message) ======================================================================== Appellant ais523's Arguments: I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because I disagree heavily with the reasoning (regardless of the actual result). In particular, I see no reason why annotations should necessarily be true; none of the definitions I've come across imply this, for instance. It is a common meme on programming fora on the Internet that many of the annotations in /The Annotated ANSI C Standard/ are false, for instance (see <http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/schildt.html> for a source for this); yet I haven't seen anyone claim that due to their falseness they are not annotations. ======================================================================== Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2282 ============================== CFJ 2282 ============================== comex's annotation to Rule 1367 worked. ======================================================================== Caller: ehird Judge: Murphy Judgement: FALSE Appeal: 2282a Decision: (pending) ======================================================================== History: Called by ehird: 19 Nov 2008 16:21:26 GMT Assigned to Murphy: 19 Nov 2008 17:16:20 GMT Judged FALSE by Murphy: 25 Nov 2008 21:03:54 GMT Appealed by ais523: 26 Nov 2008 13:23:34 GMT Appealed by Elysion: 27 Nov 2008 14:47:33 GMT Appealed by ehird: 27 Nov 2008 15:32:02 GMT Appeal 2282a: 27 Nov 2008 15:32:02 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: This one: I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical annotation: { Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months, cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. } ======================================================================== Judge Murphy's Arguments: Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation" requires that the annotation was true, which this purported annotation was not. ========================================================================
