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.


Reply via email to