On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ.
(I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to
change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block
self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole.
Wonder what happened to that.)
Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response
might not be mandatory.
Without such an explicit connection, such a clause could make a report
accidentally not self-ratify because of a CFJ that wasn't even intended
(or stated) to be relevant to it, which seems to me like a bad idea.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
