DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I CFJ on: aranea is the IADoP. I'll favour this one, with two caveats: - I have already favoured a case and only have time for one. - I promise to do a thorough investigation of the situation. I don't promise a specific outcome. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, 12 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I CFJ on: aranea is the IADoP. I'll favour this one, with two caveats: - I have already favoured a case and only have time for one. - I promise to do a thorough investigation of the situation. I don't promise a specific outcome. I'll prioritize this favoring unless you tell me otherwise.
DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, 12 May 2015 11:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I CFJ on: aranea is the IADoP. The general question is interesting, but this CFJ has a very simple answer: Yes, I *am* the IADoP. Officeholder is an Office Switch tracked by the IADoP, and R2162 (Switches) reads: c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their default value. Note the fact that the document doesn't have to be the Officer's report, the rule says a document purporting to be [..]. Therefore, I am the IADoP; if not by successful deputisation, then by the self-ratification of my attempted IADoP report on Sat 2 May. -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: Therefore, I am the IADoP; if not by successful deputisation, then by the self-ratification of my attempted IADoP report on Sat 2 May. Oh, we didn't. I'll disfavour this case then and pre-emptively favour any case which addresses the substance of the issue. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I CFJ on: aranea is the IADoP. I'll favour this one, with two caveats: - I have already favoured a case and only have time for one. - I promise to do a thorough investigation of the situation. I don't promise a specific outcome. I'll prioritize this favoring unless you tell me otherwise. Use your discretion however you see fit. I wouldn't want to deny someone else a case that they would like. (when did the IADoP's report stop being self-ratifying? ugh). -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: - the time limit for the Apr 20-26 Report had expired, but it was IMPOSSIBLE to publish a report in a previous week without time travel, so e couldn't deputize to do the Apr 20-26 Report. I don't think the substance of this is that hard. A weekly report on X is simply a requirement to publish X at least once each week: a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of eir weekly duties. The time limit for the previous week's report had expired, but that's little different from any other time limit. If the rules say you SHALL do Y within seven days, doing it after eight days still satisfies the requirement (for the purposes of deputisation) even though you didn't technically 'do Y within seven days'; similarly if they say you SHALL publish a report in a certain week.
