On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > What's incorrect about eligible voter description? It's the boilerplate
> > from many previous and I believe it's technically accurate.
>
> As I saw ais523 mention in the IRC backlog, the class of eligible
> voters you specified ("active players at the time") would include you
> even if you deregistered, but the one specified by Rule 2156 ("players
> who were active at the time") would not.
>
> I'm not even going to try figuring out how this interacts with Rule
> 107. However, I'll note that the proposal (both of them actually)
> that purportedly fixed ratification was distributed with the same
> incorrect description, and I actually deregistered during its voting
> period, making it a substantive error. The resolution was also
> incorrect, as it included me in the vote tally.
I think ais523 and I were pondering whether:
1. I announce that the voters are set A;
2. The voters are actually set B; HOWEVER
3. At the time of distribution, Set A and Set B are equivalent;
means the voting announcement is still accurate.
Of particular importance to this argument is this phrase in R107:
"In
particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is
always sufficient for this purpose."
Such a list, without qualification, is "always sufficient" even if
people can drop off of it later.
-G.
