On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > I think it should be evaluated at the time of resolution, to ensure > that e.g. "6001: FOR if 6000 passed" works. (Gets messy if the > resolution of 6000 is accidentally invalid, but I can't think of a > good way around that. If the resolution of 6000 is deliberately > invalid or delayed, then you should move to sack the Assessor.)
My gut reaction is I'm not sure as a matter of policy that conditional votes should be used to effectively "extend" the voting period to cover events afterwards. I see the benefits in the above exchange but see a lot of room for scams and trouble, too. Other opinions on either side of this? -Goethe
