On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > > > > 3. The Cautious CAN resolve the Moot 4 or more days after > > initiating it, and SHALL do so within 14 days of > > initiating it. E does so by announcing the selection of > > a single option of eir choice from among all valid > > options that received the most (unretracted) Support. > > > > > > In the standard case the Arbitrator is the Cautious, but this is written > generally > > presumably to allow for situations where a person (perhaps the caller, > the judge, > > or some other non-transferrable qualifier) is the Cautious. What then > happens if the > > Cautious deregisters before resolving the Moot? > > Hmmm. You're right, the layer of indirection makes it unclear whether > the responsibility for resolving a Moot sticks with the Person or Office. > Agoran decisions handle this explicitly, and we don't have any > other "long procedural" steps right now where it's an issue.
I had an idea some years ago of explicitly defining how official duties worked, that would explicitly handle cases like someone coming into office immediately before a deadline. Perhaps it's time to revive that? Also, why the power-3 rule in the proto? -scshunt
