On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: >> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: >> >> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify >> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes >> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it >> is self-ratifying that that occurred. >> >> * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution >> message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). >> >> Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, >> even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, >> there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they >> were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty >> this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have > thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never > know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system > explicitly makes the outcome ratify. > > Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably > accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require > decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL.
I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). -G.
