On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >> In the PNP i believe that the PNP is indeed the Executor of its own >> messages, as it has an e-mail address set up specifically for it, and >> it sends its own messages. I see no reason that partnerships be > > Read the definition of Executor: > > The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who > sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be > sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is > the executor of the announcement. > > The PNP, by definition, cannot be an executor of anything since it is > not first-class. For all the current ways the PNP sends message there > is usually a clear (if tricky to identify) first-class person who > triggers the script that sends the message (activating a proposal or > running one of the CGI programs directly). > > -woggle >
Hmm, then I think that Executor can/should be modified to take into account the PNP and other partnerships of that nature, as I've always (until now) seen the PNP as its own executor.
