ais523 wrote: > 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.
No, you're right, though anyone can deputise for a vacant office by announcement.
