On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, omd wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> 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. > > But I (arguably) clearly identified the proposal I was referring to, > so it was an attempt to initiate a decision for the correct proposal > without (correct) essential parameters, not an imaginary duplicate > proposal with AI 1.
Ah yes, I was coming in late and responding to the general question on attempts to initiate nonexistent proposals. I agree with you that this situation is existing proposal/incorrect parameter.
