On 2/6/21 6:31 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Falsifian wrote: > >>>> =============================== CFJ 3898 =============================== >>>> >>>> The time at which an intent to do something without objection >>>> becomes resolvable is a deadline. >>>> >>>> ========================================================================== >> ... >> >>> I find that the only sensible interpretations of "deadline" are >>> >>> a) a time limit after which doing X is too late to satisfy a SHALL >>> >>> b) a time limit after which doing X is too late to be POSSIBLE >>> >>> which are respectively addressed by the examples listed in R2614. The >>> attempted use cases here are >>> >>> c) a time limit before which doing X is too early to be POSSIBLE >>> >>> d) a soft time limit after which doing X may be too late to be >>> effective, based on whether someone else did Y in between >>> >>> both of which, while equally sensible concepts, including them in the >>> definition of "deadline" would be too much of a stretch. FALSE. >> Isn't 4 days a deadline for objectors to make their voice heard? That >> is like your sense (b) above. You can object after 5 days but it might >> not work if the performer acts before that. > That's d). You can object after 5 days and it might work if the > performer doesn't act before that. It's definitely closer to the usual > definition of "deadline" than c) is, but still not there IMO.
Even if the intent has been resolved, objections still have effect because they prevent repeated resolutions. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
