Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:21 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: *7111 1.0 Tanner L. Points for the Big Guy *7115 1.0 Tanner L. Relax / Stroke Hell CoE: not that either of these would have any effect due to insufficient AI, but these proposals with these purported AIs never existed and thus weren't distributed. Actually, I'm pretty sure these proposals were still validly distributed, even with the incorrectly listed AI, because nobody CoEd the distribution within 7 days. They proceeded to fail. Tanner Swett did, in message ID CAA81pGSoZdGZ5t_KJYf7pTE=l0e_8u2mj21nshws2mmyrgd...@mail.gmail.com.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
omd wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: *7111 1.0 Tanner L. Points for the Big Guy *7115 1.0 Tanner L. Relax / Stroke Hell CoE: not that either of these would have any effect due to insufficient AI, but these proposals with these purported AIs never existed and thus weren't distributed. Actually, I'm pretty sure these proposals were still validly distributed, even with the incorrectly listed AI, because nobody CoEd the distribution within 7 days. They proceeded to fail. Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do (R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that the proposal exists.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do (R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that the proposal exists. The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is R107, which includes the lack is correctly identified within one week clause.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do (R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that the proposal exists. The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is R107, which includes the lack is correctly identified within one week clause. Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both: (1) The initiator must be authorized to initiate it; (2) The essential parameters must be included. The essential parameters ratify if not identified. However, the fact that the initiator is/isn't authorized to initiate a particular decision isn't an essential parameter. Since the Promotor isn't authorized to initiate a decision for a nonexistent proposal, that part doesn't ratify. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is R107, which includes the lack is correctly identified within one week clause. Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both: (1) The initiator must be authorized to initiate it; (2) The essential parameters must be included. The essential parameters ratify if not identified. However, the fact that the initiator is/isn't authorized to initiate a particular decision isn't an essential parameter. Since the Promotor isn't authorized to initiate a decision for a nonexistent proposal, that part doesn't ratify. But I (arguably) clearly identified the proposal I was referring to, so it was an attempt to initiate a decision for the correct proposal without (correct) essential parameters, not an imaginary duplicate proposal with AI 1.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Purported distributions don't self-ratify. Purported resolutions do (R2034), including (for decisions on proposals) the implicit claim that the proposal exists. The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is R107, which includes the lack is correctly identified within one week clause. Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both: (1) The initiator must be authorized to initiate it; (2) The essential parameters must be included. The essential parameters ratify if not identified. However, the fact that the initiator is/isn't authorized to initiate a particular decision isn't an essential parameter. Since the Promotor isn't authorized to initiate a decision for a nonexistent proposal, that part doesn't ratify. Followup: From R1607, the Promotor CANNOT distribute a proposal that is not in the proposal pool, so is clearly not authorized to do so. And that failure looks platonic and not subject to ratification. A rewrite would put permission on the ratifiable side: Amend R107: - by deleting 'authorized to initiate it' from the first paragraph; - by inserting the following paragraph between paragraphs (a) and (b): (b) the mechanism by which the initiator is authorized by the Rules to initiate the Decision (for example, As Promotor, I distribute the following distributable proposal). - by relettering paragraphs (a) through (e) to be (a) through (f) in sequence. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7111 - 7118
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The rule which would invalidate it for missing essential parameters is R107, which includes the lack is correctly identified within one week clause. Hm, not exactly. For a Decision to be initiated by R107, both: (1) The initiator must be authorized to initiate it; (2) The essential parameters must be included. The essential parameters ratify if not identified. However, the fact that the initiator is/isn't authorized to initiate a particular decision isn't an essential parameter. Since the Promotor isn't authorized to initiate a decision for a nonexistent proposal, that part doesn't ratify. But I (arguably) clearly identified the proposal I was referring to, so it was an attempt to initiate a decision for the correct proposal without (correct) essential parameters, not an imaginary duplicate proposal with AI 1. Ah yes, I was coming in late and responding to the general question on attempts to initiate nonexistent proposals. I agree with you that this situation is existing proposal/incorrect parameter.
