On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +0000, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
> > of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to ratify
> > the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the ID
> > number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}
>
> I object, not because I disagree with the principle, but because of the
> time paradox. Identify the proposal via some means other than number
> (e.g. via its title and submission date).
Question: does Aris's announcement of intent "identify a lack" as per
R107 and kill the decision just by being intended? I can see arguments
on both sides of that one, but definitely *don't* want to muck it up with
a CFJ before some discussion. (Mind you, the way R107 is written, maybe
even discussion forum lack-identification counts - is there a precedent
on that?)
tl;dr Asset Proposals are Cursed.
