On 8 November 2011 07:10, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011, omd wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> > Considered it's only to be used when there's something buggy which >> > would probably be fixed when caught, a good compromise is to add a >> > sentence to another officer (Registrar?) >> >> Perhaps just remove the requirement that switches be tracked by an >> officer (which is currently broken, in fact, since it probably is not >> fulfilled if the office is empty), so if we make such a mistake we'll >> just be left with an untracked switch rather than a weird not-a-switch >> entity. > > Except, when something ceases to be tracked, it becomes unregulated... > or it used to, or there's a danger of it, or something like that. > > For vacancies, we should probably do a pass that replaces "officer" > with "office" or makes them synonymous in some stronger way, some > text that says "if the rules state that an officer has a duty, it > is a regulated aspect of the office even if the office is vacant." > > -G.
What if we make Agora the officer in any situation where an office would be empty, so switches are flipped only with Agoran consent. Actually, I believe Agora is technically a player (there was some discussion about this - I can't remember the result) so we could already nominate Agora as an officer. What happens if, as an officer, Agora breaks the law? - Arkady
