On Aug 30, 2014, at 5:07 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 09:28 -0400, Tanner Swett wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to ratify the document consisting of the >> "Office" and "Holder" columns of the table in the below report. > > They're self-ratifying (R1006 defines officeholder as a switch; why > isn't it "officeholdor", come to think of it?, and R2162c defines > anything that purports to be an officer's report about switches as > self-ratifying). That said, arguably something purporting to be a report > made via deputisation is not purporting to be an officer's report.
I only announced intent manually since I didn't realize that this information was self-ratifying. The rules don't actually define what a report is, but I think common sense says that a report is the document published in the course of publishing a document containing information defined as being part of a report. In any case, I performed the action "as if I held the office", which I think means that any report published via deputisation is considered to be a report published by an officer. —the Warrigal
