On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Rule 2143 has an exacting standard. It says that the information must
> be published. A mostly-correct report is not, by its definition,
> sufficient to fulfill the duties of the office. Therefore aranea has
> failed to publish the ADoP's report since August.
I believe it has been found that a reasonable effort of a report still
satisfies the duties of producing a report, even if there are errors.
Anyone have a better memory of CFJs for this before I go digging?
This interpretation also wholly breaks self-ratification. If only 100%
correct documents are "reports", and only "reports" self-ratify, then
only 100% correct documents would self-ratify, which rather defeats the
purpose (and calls into question any and every past self-ratification
of a report error, of which there have been many).
So even without past precedent, there's a strong implication that we
define mostly-complete/correct reports as "reports". Exactly how much
of a report has to be present for it to be a report is a gray area.
-G.
