Ian Kelly wrote:
>What do you think about effects such as this one, from proposal 4453?
I guess that qualifies as a Legislative Order, so at least it's something
that categorically does have defined persistence. I'm not happy about
the arbitrary scope of Orders (except Timing Orders), and I'd consider
it bad form to use an Order to impose obligations that extend beyond
some prompt action. The one you cite is discharged by a short sequence
of actions that will be executed in a matter of days, so there's not
much of an issue there. If it were of the form "Every week until X
the Scorekeepor shall ..." then I'd consider that a bad use of Orders,
which ought to be in a rule instead. A completely open-ended obligation
("Every week the Scorekeepor shall ...") appears to make an unsatisfiable
Order, which might be invalid.
-zefram
