Here are some statements on which we might want to call for judgement to resolve this mess:
* a message labelled as a "distribution of proposals" and detailing the text and other attributes of proposals, as has been periodically published during the first quarter of 2007, in the absence of public disagreement over voter eligibility, qualifies as a set of R107 notices initiating the Agoran decisions on the adoption of those proposals * if a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which voters were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible * the set of eligible voters on an Agoran decision can change during its voting period * item (a) in rule 683 requires that for a ballot to be valid its submitter must be an eligible voter at the time that the ballot is submitted * item (a) in rule 683 requires that for a ballot to be valid its submitter must be an eligible voter at the time that that the ballot's validity is determined The last two should obviously be linked. Maybe some others should be linked too. Comments? -zefram
