On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > This matches the existing language for elections. I think that the > mechanism to do so is via Rule 208, specifying the outcome in the > resolution. I agree that there is ambiguity in the interim period; > perhaps the simplest way to deal with it.
I guess we can read 'select [...] as the outcome' as 'whatever e selects becomes the outcome', although I think it's a bit of a stretch with Agora's traditionally fairly literal-minded interpretation. In any case this creates an odd situation if the vote collector declines to choose an outcome in the resolution, as the effects that depend on the outcome occur at that time. (This is legal, of course, as long as e chooses/attempts to choose one afterward.) While in the case of your proposal there is no obvious reason for the collector to monkey with outcomes, in an election it would arguably have the effect of keeping the current holder in office, who may not be one of the tying options. (...maybe I should have just sat on that until I could scam it, but the political machinations necessary for doing so to be useful don't seem likely to come up anytime soon, the chance of there being a tie is pretty low, and I don't want to be the IADoP. I bet nobody will bother to submit a proposal to fix this, though...)
