Re: [s-d] [s-b] CFI 105

[James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:32:22 -0500
> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-b] CFI 105
> 
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I judge CFI 105 UNDECIDED, on the ground that the rules for which action comes first (Sheep Gnome Placement or
> > Gnome Factory Activation) are ambiguous.
> 
> I appeal.
> 
> ...I also note that the results of overturning a decision of UNDECIDED
> are less than entirely clear about what it becomes next. Anybody want
> to work out a refined appeals system?


An unauthored proposal with the text {Overturn CFI 105} is created. Only members of the upper house can vote on this but I assume the MoC still has to recognise it. If it passes then I assume the matter would have to be reCFIed as CFI 105 would be no longer valid. Perhaps the appeal judgement should also include an option to add the judge to the LMJ. 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss