On 1/30/2020 9:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably >> accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require >> decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. > > I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason > so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that > if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate > tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the > individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't > self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway").
So - just checking here. Under the current R208, it would be fine to say "the Decision on Proposal X had 8 voters, and a total strength of 18 FOR and 6 AGAINST, and was therefore ADOPTED" without mentioning any particular voter's name, right? Do we want to mandate actual name reporting? -G.
