G. wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> 6372 D 1 2.0 G. Transition Team >> AGAINST > > I'm a little puzzled by opposition to this (not just on your part, other > voters too...) is there a bug I'm missing? Because to me this one seemed > like a straightforward "this would be a useful feature to get willing > recordkeepors working" kind of thing. -G.
Looks like I was the only other one (I haven't gotten all my records caught up yet). I voted AGAINST because it can already be more or less simulated via "I resign and recommend that <volunteer> take over pending an election", or via act-on-behalf contract if you really want to make sure that no one else grabs the vacant office first.
