woggle wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 22:45:30 Ed Murphy wrote:
pikhq wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 14:56:13 Josiah Worcester wrote:
I intend to ratify Murphy's report on the voting results on proposals
5390-5404.
I claim this as erroneous.
The purported report, or your intent to ratify it? Does your statement
of intent, in fact, have a valid referent?
(Oh boy, the doublethink is piling up quickly.)
I intend to ratify my message alleging to announce the voting results of
proposals 5390-5404.
I was thinking of doing this earlier, but then noticed that the resolution
of an Agoran decision probably wasn't an official report for the purposes
of R1551. Is there some precedent that says otherwise?
Ugh, I think you're right. Manual ratification of messages not
claiming to be reports can only be done by proposal, and it should
probably stay that way.
From here, there are a number of ways we could proceed:
1) Treat pikhq's dispute in a-b as insufficiently explicit and let
the results self-ratify, issue delayed until at least January 23.
2) IADoP conducts Assessor election, new Assessor re-posts results,
issue delayed until at least January 28.
3) Either root or BobTHJ withdraws eir consent to be installed as
Assessor, the other is installed and re-posts results, issue
delayed until at least January 21. I think this would work; the
rules only measure consent at the end of the four-day window, and
don't say that it can't be withdrawn. We can always set a new
election into motion after this is cleared up.
4) Someone deputises for Assessor to perform that office's duty as
vote collector, issue delayed until at least January 23. I think
this would work (per CFJs 1758-59, the vote collector's duties are
the officer's duties), but it would be slower than option 3.
5) Adopt a proposal ratifying the original results, issue delayed
until at least January 27 (maybe 24 if it's distributed ahead of
the usual bi-weekly schedule).
