This is intentional, as far as I'm aware. On Tue, Nov 28, 2017, 01:45 Ørjan Johansen, <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 01:03 Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > > > >> I support and do so. > >> > > > > This doesn't work as you don't hold the office, however, with o, Aris, > and > > Gaelan's support, I do so. > > I'm pretty sure Gaelan's action is _intended_ to work by rule 1728 § 4.3, > but on looking at it, I think the mechanism is messed up: > > A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform > an action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 > unless otherwise specified): > [...] > thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of > the following are true: > [...] > 3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the > action depends on support, the performer has supported the > intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not > explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it. > > The "em" of the second excerpt refers to "a person" in the first excerpt, > and that person must be _allowed_ to perform the action dependently. > > Condition 4.3 tries to allow supporters to be performers, but it's not > itself an authorization, but just a condition for the authorization in the > second excerpt to trigger - and the second excerpt contains the actual > anouncement mechanism, which must be performed by someone authorized by > according to the first excerpt. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
