On Jan 17, 2008 4:15 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 don't say that it can't be withdrawn.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). >
6) Get the Default Officeholder prerogative definitively assigned and have em claim the office and publish the results, issue delayed at least until CFJ 1862 or 1873 is judged. -root
