On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:46 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2020-06-09 16:26, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:32 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I see. I think that would be classified as the second point in the "All > >> Offices" section that says > >> > >> * Situations not enumerated above that require special attention > >> from an Officer: signal that Officer > >> > >> Although I suppose that I could add another point for just > >> contract-defined officers that states something specifically if you > >> think that'd be valuable. > > > > I do think that would be valuable since that's not included in the > > common definition of officers. > > That is a good point. I could possibly add a special definition for > "officer" to the contract that would include the set of all > rules-defined officers as well as any person described as having the > responsibility to track things defined by a contract. I think that could > be a good way to define this. > > >> So do you think this section is unnecessary? If not, how would you fix > >> it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you want me to do here. > > > > I didn't really have a specific solution in mind. I'm just not sure > > what this does because of its phrasing, but I'm not sure if it's a > > problem. If it is, I think the best idea would be to have a vague > > clause that gets the idea across without being too specific. > > Hmm, How about a major generalization of this list item. Something along > the lines of "When an officer states either implicitly or explicitly > that e will perform an action related to eir official duties, and there > is no cause to believe that e is performing that action for any > malicious or nefarious purpose, then parties to this contract SHOULD NOT > do anything that would majorly hinder or impede the officer's > performance of that action." Does that seem good? It makes it more > general and, I think, more explicit.
That wording seems very good to me. > > > I'm sorry if this feels nitpicky, but I really like the idea and am > > interested in it, in case that wasn't clear. > > I appreciate your interest and input into this contract. I think it is a > very worthwhile thing to perfect. I want to make sure it doesn't blow up > in my face (or worse, the face of any hardworking officer). So I thank > you for your help in proofreading this. > > -- > Trigon
