On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows: >>> I go on hold. I come off hold. I Form a Government as follows: >> >> Ooh, that's a nice little bug. And a sum of unintended consequences >> rather than just a straightforward "bad card proposal writing". >> >> I think (and thought while writing cards) that both the previous and >> current Speaker ascension rules had a little too much platonism in >> them... we've had several "who's the speaker now" conversations over >> the past year at least... better system suggestions? > > "When the Speaker Forms a Government, e becomes <adjective>. An > <adjective> Speaker CANNOT Form a Government. An <adjective> Speaker > becomes non-<adjective> if e has not Formed a Government within the > past 3 months, or CAN become non-<adjective> without objection." > > (The problem with making Forming a Government without-objection > directly is that you might have to specify its makeup in the > announcement of intent.)
Honestly, I was thinking that the deeper problem was the Speaker succession method, if Speaker identity can switch on and off platonically for example with activity. For example, as Herald I'm now required to announce whomever was instantaneously the new speaker, not a problem but it illustrates that for an officer's position, we might want to improve the whole succession. I only bring it up because, when writing cards, sorting out the last-N champions/succession language made me think again about how we'd had problems with it even when it was MwoP-related. One fix, right off, is that when the Speaker steps out of succession via inactivity or deregistration e should lose eir place right away, rather than waiting until the Champions/MwoPs turn over. -G.
