On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > With this clause, making assumption automatic, I would't do a one-off > > deputization. > > > > Suggestion: make it opt-in, not opt-out (the deputy CAN take over the > > office if e does so in the message in which e deputizes). > > My apologies for somehow missing this message entirely. I don't > consider this a huge deal, given that the deputy can just resign the > office, and it will only be vacant until the next time someone > deputizes for it. I probably would have changed this though if I > hadn't missed the message and already sent my revision to the list :P
This is more of an minimization-of-error thing. We're likely to see more "oops, I deputized but I didn't mean to take the office" corrections than the other way around. Agree it's not a big deal and easy to fix later if needed. -G.
