On Sun, 2024-08-25 at 13:23 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Kate wrote: > > > When a judgement is issued that has major implications for the > > interpretation of a rule, and it is highly unlikely that the rule > > will be changed to alter the interpretation or the case reopened > > in the near future, the Arbitor SHALL in an officially timely > > fashion write a brief description of the implication and > > communicate it to the Rulekeepor with a recommendation for > > inclusion in the Full Logical Ruleset. (This duty is immediately > > discharged if the office of Rulekeepor is vacant.) > > How about "(or, if Rulekeepor is vacant, publish it)"? That will likely > suffice to communicate it to whomever ends up being the next Rulekeepor. >
Mm, fair. I might change it if I remember after the first intent passes; it seems an unlikely enough scenario (nearly five years' service!) that I'm not terribly worried about it. Mostly, I was just trying to make sure there's no way for me to end up in situation where it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to fulfil a SHALL. I don't think 2531/18(3) will save me since I'm putting the obligation on myself. ~qenya
