On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 19:47, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Geoffrey Spear<geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I resign as Promotor and Registrar. Someone who voted for the >>> abortion that repealed officer salaries can take them. >>> >> >> You do realize I have a proposal that will award back salaries. >> > > Waitaminute. Isn't there an existing precedent to the tune that "if a > priority of an office is undefined, we can use the natural sense of high > and low priority to define it" and further that by custom, any weekly > office was high priority? I don't see anything in the ruleset that > prevents a judge/precedent from deciding that an office is high or low > priority based on custom. Or is this just another thing that was > "decided" without a CFJ or question? -G. > In the same manner that the function of a repealed rule can still work via custom (such as Executorship was) those offices which in the past were defined as high-priority should still be treated as such, right?
BobTHJ
