On 1/18/20 10:07 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I don't think you're correct; the first condition of rule 2160 is that > the officer is required to perform the action. You would need to set > this up would be if you could create a way that the officer could > perform the action without discharging the obligation, which would be > a nice trick! > > Furthermore, for reports specifically, the act of publishing the > report once fulfills all the obligations to publish. Although if Aris' > interpretation of "publish a report accurate to some time within the > week", perhaps it doesn't... Actually, I think that may be the > strongest argument, better than all my other ones, against eir > interpretation.
Here's an excerpt from R2160: > 1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action); > > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office; > > 3. either (i) a time limit by which the rules require the action > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant; > > 4. either (i) the office is vacant, (ii) the aforementioned time > limit expired more than fourteen days ago, or (iii) the deputy > announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended > to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular > action; and Say an office failed to publish a weekly report one year ago. I think it would be possible to deputise for that office to publish a weekly report: Condition 1. is fulfilled because the Rules require the office to publish a weekly report (in the hypothetical). Condition 2. is fulfilled because the Office can publish that Office's weekly report. Condition 3. is fulfilled because, at least by my reading, the time limit has still been violated, and nothing can ever un-violate it. It's still always true that "the Office has violated a requirement to publish the weekly report for that week", even if the obligation was later fulfilled. Condition 4. is fulfilled because the time limit expired a year ago, which is more than 14 days. Condition 5 (not shown) can be trivially fulfilled. I'm assuming if this argument is wrong, it fails on condition 3, but I honestly don't see what's wrong with my reading there. -- Jason Cobb
