Ed Murphy wrote: >This is intended to be interpreted on a per-case basis. For instance, >for Human Point Two's "with consent or without objection" style of >approval, I would expect consent to be interpreted as active, and >lack of objection as passive.
Ah, that's worse. That's actually how I originally interpreted the proto, but then I thought you couldn't possibly mean it. It would make the possibility of deregistering the partnership contingent on events that have likely taken place in private and might not be properly recorded. The existing deregistration criterion can be affected by private changes of membership, but that's an obviously-important event and so the current membership can be expected to be known with certainty. -zefram
