On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 08:29 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >>> 6372 D 1 2.0 G. Transition Team > >> AGAINST > > > > I'm a little puzzled by opposition to this (not just on your part, other > > voters too...) is there a bug I'm missing? Because to me this one seemed > > like a straightforward "this would be a useful feature to get willing > > recordkeepors working" kind of thing. -G. > > Looks like I was the only other one (I haven't gotten all my records > caught up yet). I voted AGAINST because it can already be more or > less simulated via "I resign and recommend that <volunteer> take over > pending an election", or via act-on-behalf contract if you really want > to make sure that no one else grabs the vacant office first.
Only the Default Officeholder can grab vacant offices, unless I'm missing something. -- ais523
