On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, omd wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> > > Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do
> > > (R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that
> > > the proposal exists.
> >
> > The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is
> > R107, which includes the "lack is correctly identified within one
> > week" clause.
>
> Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both:
> (1) The initiator must be authorized to initiate it;
> (2) The essential parameters must be included.
>
> The essential parameters "ratify" if not identified. However, the fact
> that the initiator is/isn't authorized to initiate a particular
> decision isn't an essential parameter. Since the Promotor isn't
> authorized to initiate a decision for a nonexistent proposal, that
> part doesn't ratify.
Followup: From R1607, the Promotor CANNOT distribute a proposal that is
not in the proposal pool, so is clearly not authorized to do so. And that
failure looks platonic and not subject to ratification.
A rewrite would put permission on the ratifiable side:
Amend R107:
- by deleting 'authorized to initiate it' from the first paragraph;
- by inserting the following paragraph between paragraphs (a) and (b):
(b) the mechanism by which the initiator is authorized by the Rules to
initiate the Decision (for example, "As Promotor, I distribute
the following distributable proposal").
- by relettering paragraphs (a) through (e) to be (a) through (f) in
sequence.
-G.
