Levi wrote:
The recent voting results and self-ratification of those results I think
concluded that voting results self ratify, even if not published by the
assessor.
Any message claiming to resolve an Agoran decision self-ratifies
(unless challenged in time). This is intentional, to paper over
undetected errors in the identity of the vote collector (as well
as undetected errors in the vote tally).
So, I could publish voting results for the above proposal, and those
results would self ratify one week later. This can be challenged by a
claim of error (which can be denied with no reasoning required), or an
inquiry case.
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?
Either method turns off the original timer permanently. Denying a
claim of error turns on a new timer; judging an inquiry case to the
effect of "no, it was not in error in that fashion" does not.
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?
Yes, see CFJ 1690.
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?
The latter, as previously noted.
