On Wed, 9 Sep 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > However, there were 2 cases (CFJ 2348, CFJ 2379) where the holder of a > low-priority office was accused of failing to report during eir first > month in the office; both resulted in SILENCE. The first involved the > holder being in office for 15 days in the month (although it was > December, so many of these days were during the Holiday) and the > second 11 days. > > Of course, you can look at these number 2 ways; either that these are >> 7 days or that they're less than half the reporting period and would > translate to a 2-3 day period for a high-priority office.
I think these should be looked as as absolute days; the grace period is for a person to learn e has won the election and to get eir records in order; that doesn't vary with office importance. The holidays are relevant though. But the important point to raise is that with sentencing, it's very much circumstance dependent. Does the person have all the records or were they hard to reconstruct from a lapsed office? Is it a difficult task to get the hang of (lots to track versus little to track?). Are they very busy producing other relevant reports of service to Agora so a lower-priority one got side- tracked? Etc. (Even with all these excuses a 1 Rest ding is a slap on the wrist in current card economy so might be reasonable; if you were that busy why did you nominate yourself?). I think the real "precedent" outside of 4 days boils down to "you should expect that the case might be raised, it is a rules breach after all, and you should have a good excuse"; in this case the judge opined on the excuse. -G.
