On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 22:17, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> Here's an excerpt from R2160: > > > 1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > > holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is > > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action); > > > > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > > other than by deputisation, if e held the office; > > > > 3. either (i) a time limit by which the rules require the action > > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant; > > > > 4. either (i) the office is vacant, (ii) the aforementioned time > > limit expired more than fourteen days ago, or (iii) the deputy > > announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended > > to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular > > action; and > > > Say an office failed to publish a weekly report one year ago. I think it > would be possible to deputise for that office to publish a weekly report: > > Condition 1. is fulfilled because the Rules require the office to > publish a weekly report (in the hypothetical). > Ah, I see where we were thinking differently. Yes, I think your idea works then, so long as it happens earlier in the week before the officer publishes the report and the obligation is live. Once the report is published, the obligation is fulfilled until the start of the next week, whereupon it would be possible again. I think a better way to frame it might be to rephrase in terms of obligations. So 1 becomes "There is an obligation on the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action.", 3 becomes "a time limit applicable to that obligation has been violated", etc. While we're here, I think that condition 4 could do with some clean-ups? -Alexis
