On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 17:16, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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? > Nothing wrong with it per se, but the announcement of intent is not the most relevant thing any more. I wonder if we should increase the situations where it's used or get rid of it. One option would be that non-temporary deputization for a non-interim office must be announced in advanced; i.e., someone who got into office by election is entitled to notice that you are threatening to usurp them. Alexis
