Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7745-46
On Tue, 12 May 2015, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: On May 11, 2015 19:02, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- I vote as follows: 7745* scshunt 2.0 Official Functions AGAINST; this implies that if an officer misses last week's report and I take over from them this week, I then have to publish both last week's and this week's reports, which doesn't fit common practice and is kind-of redundant. Clarifying this would be helpful, but I'd rather prefer to 217 it than to have an incorrect clarification. Current practice is that publishing one report fulfills all outstanding obligations to publish reports. My proposal does not change the rules in this regard. It's not in the rules, but it's an old precedent around *timed* reports. Whenever you publish a report in a given week, it is (by definition) a report for that week. One CANNOT publish a report in a previous week. So even if the rule is interpreted as saying you're required to publish last week's report, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do so. Hmm, except this means it's technically IMPOSSIBLE to deputize to publish a late report, because you can never publish last week's report, and this week's report isn't late yet.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7745-46
On Tue, 12 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: On May 11, 2015 19:02, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- I vote as follows: 7745* scshunt 2.0 Official Functions AGAINST; this implies that if an officer misses last week's report and I take over from them this week, I then have to publish both last week's and this week's reports, which doesn't fit common practice and is kind-of redundant. Clarifying this would be helpful, but I'd rather prefer to 217 it than to have an incorrect clarification. Current practice is that publishing one report fulfills all outstanding obligations to publish reports. My proposal does not change the rules in this regard. It's not in the rules, but it's an old precedent around *timed* reports. Whenever you publish a report in a given week, it is (by definition) a report for that week. One CANNOT publish a report in a previous week. So even if the rule is interpreted as saying you're required to publish last week's report, it's IMPOSSIBLE to do so. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7745-46
On Tue, 12 May 2015 00:02:45 +0100 Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- I vote as follows: 7745* scshunt2.0 Official Functions AGAINST; this implies that if an officer misses last week's report and I take over from them this week, I then have to publish both last week's and this week's reports, which doesn't fit common practice and is kind-of redundant. Clarifying this would be helpful, but I'd rather prefer to 217 it than to have an incorrect clarification. I change my vote on proposal 7745 to AGAINST. -- aranea
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7745-46
On May 11, 2015 19:02, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- I vote as follows: 7745* scshunt2.0 Official Functions AGAINST; this implies that if an officer misses last week's report and I take over from them this week, I then have to publish both last week's and this week's reports, which doesn't fit common practice and is kind-of redundant. Clarifying this would be helpful, but I'd rather prefer to 217 it than to have an incorrect clarification. Current practice is that publishing one report fulfills all outstanding obligations to publish reports. My proposal does not change the rules in this regard. -scshunt
