On 1/18/20 11:07 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > Ah, I see where we were thinking differently. Yes, I think your idea works > then, so long as it happens earlier in the week before the officer > publishes the report and the obligation is live. Once the report is > published, the obligation is fulfilled until the start of the next week, > whereupon it would be possible again. > > I think a better way to frame it might be to rephrase in terms of > obligations. So 1 becomes "There is an obligation on the holder of that > office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action.", 3 > becomes "a time limit applicable to that obligation has been violated", etc.
Sure those make sense (as does as a general statute of limitations). > While we're here, I think that condition 4 could do with some clean-ups? What's wrong with condition 4? -- Jason Cobb
