[Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 13:19:35 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> I'm quite willing to remove the objectionable clause of Rule 60 and
> not pass Dereliction (and to veto any positive-requirement rules in
> the future), or alternatively to keep it and ratify the mechanism of
> enforcing it (and any future similar rules); but it seems logically
> inconsistent to pass both of these proposals.
I think baf wants Rule 60 fixed so that, if someone fails to follow it, we
don't *need* to invoke DoD in that case -- but is also willing to support
DoD just in case we err in the future, and inadvertantly pass another law
which might require its use. A sort of "belt and suspenders" approach.
(Also, as an unrelated side note, I believe it's baf's turn.)
_/<-= Admiral Jota =->\_
\<-= email@example.com =->/