Index ← 3822 CFJ 3823 3824 → text
===============================  CFJ 3823  ===============================

      I am currently obligated to publish a report detailing the values
      of Karma switches as of some point in the previous Agoran week.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        Alexis

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by Alexis:                                 09 Mar 2020 23:48:47
Assigned to G.:                                   20 Mar 2020 21:41:26
Judged FALSE by G.:                               27 Mar 2020 13:55:32
Motion to Reconsider self-filed:                  28 Mar 2020 18:14:31
Judged FALSE by G.:                               18 Apr 2020 15:31:33

==========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

I missed my report last week, so my obligation to publish it continues. 
Per CFJ 3798, "each part must be up-to-date to within the time frame
specified for the report (e.g. to the current week for weekly)". So does
this mean that I am obligated to publish a report for the previous week,
as an up-to-date report would not be within the specified time frame?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge G.'s Arguments:

This Judge apologizes for unclear wording in CFJ 3798.

To be clear, in this text:
>         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.

"SHALL maintain" is a duty with no deadline, time limit or window.
Therefore, whether a record is "maintained" or not is evaluated
continuously, and is in reference to the present moment (i.e. "is the
record currently being maintained").  My judicial comments on "within the
time frame" in CFJ 3798 were meant in terms of setting an interpretive
standard for the term "maintained".  In general, if the overall
information is to be published weekly, the information is "maintained" if
it is up to date to within a week (of the publication moment) and evidence
that the information is "maintained" is the existence of such a 
publication.

Secondly, time limits and deadlines are time limits for obligations, not
part obligations (for the purpuse of deputisation, for example).
So the duty is not to "maintain information for a certain week" but to
"maintain information" and by definition, it's not "maintained
information" if it's more than week old (counting back from the time of
publication).  This is what I meant by "within the time frame" in the CFJ
3798 judgement.

Therefore, publishing "maintained information" as part of "weekly duties"
consists of publishing information that is "maintained" by being no more
than a week old in reference to the moment of publication (the message
date, not the report date, if they differ), and doing so satisfies every
past duty to do so.

The caller, at the time, was obliged to publish a report that was out of
date by no more than a week.  This *could* have been accomplished by
publishing values up to date within the previous week OR the current week
(but no older than the previous week for a weekly duty).  So the
obligation is not explicitly to maintain/publish last week's values.  
FALSE.

==========================================================================