[Nomic02] Proposal: Dereliction of Duty

[Admiral Jota]

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    =->\_
                                      \<-= jota@shelltown.com =->/