I have a strong memory of you agreeing with this argument the last time this came up, but I could always be wrong. The basic point is that the report ratifies, but none of its text would be any truer or more accurate by being a complete list rather than an incomplete one, so the ratification doesn't affect anything.
-Aris On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, R2162 is pretty clear here: > That officer's (weekly, if not specified > otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that > switch whose value is not its default value; a public document > purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is > self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their > default value. > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > We could pull out the old trick where the document ratifying doesn't > > change anything, because the document doesn't *explicitly* say that > > there are no other offices. > > > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > *sigh* nvm there was an ADoP published to BAK on June 17, which was > > > just after the proposal made omd the Distributor, so that was the > > > one that would have self-ratified (unless someone CoE'd on that one). > > > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Actually, we've got a few hours to spare on this part, it hasn't > > > > self-ratified quite yet: > > > > > > > > Claim of Error on the ADoP Report that was published on July 2 (UTC): > > > > Distributor is an Office with an officholder of omd. > > > > > > > > > > > >
