Re: [s-d] [s-b] blah

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 17:46 -0500, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 4:10 PM, comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > And the Emergency Forum ais523 set up was accessible at the time of its
> > > designation. That was on step 3 of Rule 5E0, specifically fulfilling
> > > "Posting about the Emergency Forum on all official discussion and public
> > > fora is considered a sufficient effort. ". We're currently on step 5.
> >
> > Rule 5E0 says: "The Emergency Forum must be reasonably accessible to all
> > PEPs."
> >
> > There is no indication that this requirement stops being in effect
> > when the emergency process changes to a different step.
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> What would happen if, say, spoon-business had been designated as the EF in
> an unquestionably legitimate manner, then crashed while the Pause was 4?
> 
> We need to add in a provision for changing the EF along the way (only if
> required, of course), methinks.

What's worrying here is that there's no real recourse for if the
requirement isn't met later (but is at the time). As far as I can tell,
the EF stays the same, the Pause keeps incrementing as normal, and the
emergency never finishes if nobody can access the EF at all (in which
case, we start a recursive Emergency). In a case like this where some
people can access the EF but not others, then as far as I can tell the
people who can access the EF are the only ones who can propose and vote.
-- 
ais523

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss