On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Eritivus <eriti...@gmail.com> wrote: > The "self-ratifying" clause seems worrisome, because it is not obvious > to me that it requires the conditions in the first paragraph (AI=1, 7 > days notice, etc) to be satisfied.
That ratification can occur regardless of any failures in the actual intent process is quite intentional. The whole point of self-ratification is to cover up errors that nobody notices within a reasonable timeframe. If, for example, the author messed up eir timezones or something and attempted to fast track a few hours early, but nobody points it out, it's good to avoid the problem of someone six months later reviewing it and saying, "hey, this rule ever actually existed because fast tracking failed". That it ignores the AI=1 requirement is accidental, but probably not important. If someone makes an obviously deficient fast track attempt, that's what a Claim of Error is for.
