On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Benjamin Caplan<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 15:15 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> I think what happens is that in R208, "exactly one collector...defaulting >>>> to the initiator" forces the latter part of the paragraph to not work when >>>> the office is vacant (some combination of common sense and R2240 there). >>>> So at that instant I was in fact the vote collector. If the office is >>>> re-filled, the IADoP would be the vote collector. >>> >>> I disagree, I think; AFAICT, the election can only be resolved by >>> deputisation at this point (and it makes sense to intend to deputise for >>> it now, in case there's a tie). To me, the implication is "initiator >>> specified as a person - that person collects; initiator specified as an >>> office - that office collects", which is a nice simple common sense >>> rule. >> >> Except for the "exactly one" bit. That implies very strongly that there >> can't be zero. > > Does it have to be exactly one /natural person/? Or can the vote > collector be "the IADoP"?
The IADoP is a natural person (or undefined)-- the vote collector could, I suppose, theoretically be the *office* of IADoP, but that's definitely not a solution-- it's not a person and the holder can't act on behalf of it. -- -c.
