On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 at 01:03 Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
I support and do so.
This doesn't work as you don't hold the office, however, with o, Aris, and
Gaelan's support, I do so.
I'm pretty sure Gaelan's action is _intended_ to work by rule 1728 § 4.3,
but on looking at it, I think the mechanism is messed up:
A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1
unless otherwise specified):
[...]
thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of
the following are true:
[...]
3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
action depends on support, the performer has supported the
intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
The "em" of the second excerpt refers to "a person" in the first excerpt,
and that person must be _allowed_ to perform the action dependently.
Condition 4.3 tries to allow supporters to be performers, but it's not
itself an authorization, but just a condition for the authorization in the
second excerpt to trigger - and the second excerpt contains the actual
anouncement mechanism, which must be performed by someone authorized by
according to the first excerpt.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
