Gunnar Wolf <[email protected]> writes: > Now, my thinking wandered off to the following timeline:
> almost-now o Voting is open with the A,B,C,D,E option set. > | We know the Secretary has warned that some options > | winning might trigger his obligation to mark the > | vote as invalid. > | > weeks-from- o Vote concludes. Option A wins. The Secretary rules > now | the vote invalid. > | > few-months- o GR for changing SC#5 is called, discussed, voted. > future | There is no longer a SC conflict between > | 2022/vote_003 and SC#5. > | > What would follow from here? Would the SC change automatically enable > the Secretary to reinstate the winning option A for 2022/vote_003? Or > are such rulings made (as would make sense!) for the "current > reality"? Would running the same vote again be in place? > Sorry for the hypothesizing, but I think it's important to udnerstand > where we are and where would this lead us to. If we happen to fall down this leg of the Trousers of Time, I would be inclined to explicitly reinstate option A in any SC ballot options that would make A consistent with the SC as revised. In practice, I think this specific outcome is unlikely in that I expect that if people were willing to change the SC to be consistent with option A, they'd just vote my option E. The most likely case where option A would win but not option E is if option E failed to get a 3:1 majority and then option A was the favorite among the remaining options, but in that case the SC amendment in the third step would presumably also fail to gather a 3:1 majority. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
