On Jan 24, 2008 4:44 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a hole in that the inquiry case may (esp., considering the > appeals process) take longer than a week to resolve? Is the rule > explicit enough about the document not self-ratifying if an inquiry case > is in progress?
It doesn't matter how long the process takes. The mere fact of the CFJ challenging it is sufficient to wholly prevent it from self-ratifying. > Or, I could agrue that the inquiry case did not > 'explicitly and publicly challenge' the document, or that the 'scope and > nature of the perceived error' was not defined? You could certainly argue that. I wouldn't expect you to get anywhere with it. > Another possible hole is that in response to a claim of error, the > publisher of the document (which would be the scammer, not the > assessor), can post a revision. Does the revision self ratify one week > after the publication of the orginal document, or of the publication of > the revsion? If the revision would self-ratify, then it would do so one week after it was published. I see no reason to believe that the timing of the self-ratification of a revision would be based upon the time of publication of the original document. They're two separate documents after all. Also bear in mind that any knowingly false publication of voting results is a violation of Rule 2149, and potentially a very serious one. -root
