On 1/30/2020 9:23 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 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"). > > That's not how Rule 2201 is written. An officer always has to respond > to a CoE, whether the document is self-ratifying or not, so long as e > was required to publish the document. So creating an extra category is > unnecessary. :)
Oh, thanks! I'd forgotten that change in R2201.
