Maud wrote: > Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of > proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of > eligible voters is invalid. An Agoran decision is not actually > initiated except by a valid notice. See rule 107.
We are now splintering into two separate issues. Proposal distributions in memory have not contained such information. Are they all invalid? I would say no, as R107 states: > (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to > enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. The question is, in this context, what is evidence of "public agreement"? This is not the same as an R101 agreement that required willful consent. I would say the standard of "CFJ indicates lack of agreement" is a reasonable one. Maud wrote: > By the default in rule 106, the eligible voters are the active > players. But this may be defined continuously throughout the voting period. We now have a lack of agreement for this particular distribution. Perhaps, what has really happened is the raising of this issue has caused a distinct (after the fact) lack of agreement on what constitutes the eligible voters, which means the distribution itself did not contain sufficient information (in this case) which means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no such disagreement in evidence!) was invald. -Goethe
