DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Too late; I've already agreed to it on IRC. Changes to the parties in a public contract take effect when they're published; eir leaving the contract was published before you joined it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Changes to the parties in a public contract take effect when they're published; eir leaving the contract was published before you joined it. No it wasn't. I can provide logs.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No it wasn't. I can provide logs. Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum. Rule 2178: Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published. The contract in question claimed to be a public contract.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:06:35 pm Elliott Hird wrote: 2008/7/28 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Logged or not, your IRC channel isn't a Public Forum. And you don't have to agree to contracts in a Public Forum. Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178. There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case between its second-to-last and last paragraphs. For reference: If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a contract. Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published. Pavitra
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Dealing with the ihope issue.
On Monday 28 July 2008 03:14:11 pm I wrote:
Resolving this probably will require a close reading of rule 2178.
There would superficially appear to be a conflict in this case
between its second-to-last and last paragraphs.
For reference:
If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear
indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then
it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a
contract.
Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not
become effective until they are published.
It seems to me that the last paragraph has no effect unless the text in
question is a public contract, which cannot be the case unless it is a
contract, which cannot be true unless it has two parties, which in
this case requires that ihope successfully became a party to it.
Thus, I see two possible interpretations of the situation:
(1) the membership of the contract did not change; the contract
came into being as a contract with the set of parties {Sgeo, ihope}.
(2) paradox: public contract - no unpublished changes - ihope not
party - not contract - not public contract - last paragraph of 2178
does not apply - ihope's agreement to contract was effective - two
parties - contract - public contract.
At first, I suspected that there might be two copies of the contract,
one public with only Sgeo as a party and one private with both Sgeo
and ihope, but upon closer examination I believe that the rule does
not support this. (In particular, the contract did not allow for
itself to be a pledge, so with only Sgeo as party it could not be a
contract and hence not a public contract.)
Pavitra
