On 5/5/2019 2:36 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-05-05 at 14:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That makes sense - and clever little bug. Does inserting the
following sentence into R1607 do the trick:
That might potentially make officer pay harder to compute under some
hypothetical economic systems.
Is there any reason not to just make resolving decisions
unconditionally mandatory? (Are there any cases where we'd want
decisions to be able to stick around indefinitely?)
Wondered the same thing while I was drafting that. Only reason I can
think of: AFAICT a contract can name the Assessor (or anyone) as a vote
collector even if e isn't a member of the contract and (arguably!) thus
create a requirement to resolve it. I'm not sure it's a compelling reason,
and there are probably better/clearer ways to defend against that sort of
thing anyway.
