On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:25 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 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 may also have been under differently-worded rules. 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). > Self-ratification in fact explicitly accounts for this by providing that any document purporting to be a report self-ratifies. > > 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. > As a result, I think the implication is in the other direction: that the obligation works differently from self-ratification. -Alexis
