So we have another RFR... yay. 
Do either of you have any thoughts you want to contribute?
For myself, I think we should rule that r3n did the correct thing. It has been the practice of the Speaker's Office as long as I've been here that members are removed if they are in violation at the time of the removal - if they cease to exist but are resurrected before the Office notices, or if they miss enough votes to be removed and then vote, their membership is intact.
The reasoning behind this is both technical and legal. From a legal perspective, I believe it might be an ex post facto violation to remove someone from the RA who is currently in compliance with the requirements. There is no provision for the removal of such members. It is also, in my opinion, more in line with the wording of the law, which says that the Speaker removes membership and not just updates the membership rolls. From a technical perspective, it's unenforceable to rule otherwise. The script that the Speaker uses runs when it is ordered to run, and it checks only current status. It does not record if a nation CTE'd or moved regions between times when it was run - and therefore there are two potential consequences of any ruling that says that membership is forfeit at the point of violation. Either it forces the Speaker to check all RA nations, every day, thus eliminating the point of the script, or - more likely in my opinion, since the script is too useful to be set aside - it means that the ruling will be unfairly applied to those whom others in the region notice CTEing/leaving (which is more likely the more well-known their name is). Additionally, it creates less confusion with already-concluded matters. If I CTE for five minutes and nobody notices, and then a month later somebody realizes it and reports it to the Speaker, must all votes I cast in the meantime be discarded? Should they be counted? It's not obvious what the correct thing to do is, and it's important in cases where the vote was close or quorum was only barely met.
There is, to be fair, a contrasting concern with saying membership removal is effective when the Speaker notices, in that it allows for back-room whisperings to ensure someone's RA status is not lost. However, I believe such concerns cannot be eliminated from the proposed alternative - the Speaker could notice that someone came out of compliance for five minutes and decide to sit on that information, then bring it out at some politically advantageous time to prevent someone from running for office or to suddenly forcibly remove them from it.
We cannot guard against people engaging in politicking, so we must rule on the law.
As for "promptly", I think we must hand that back without a ruling. It is the job of the RA to determine if the Speaker (or any other official) is acting sufficiently promptly, and there are any number of mechanisms (petition, legislation, censure, recall) to address that concern if it feels there is a problem.
So. Thoughts?
Do either of you have any thoughts you want to contribute?
For myself, I think we should rule that r3n did the correct thing. It has been the practice of the Speaker's Office as long as I've been here that members are removed if they are in violation at the time of the removal - if they cease to exist but are resurrected before the Office notices, or if they miss enough votes to be removed and then vote, their membership is intact.
The reasoning behind this is both technical and legal. From a legal perspective, I believe it might be an ex post facto violation to remove someone from the RA who is currently in compliance with the requirements. There is no provision for the removal of such members. It is also, in my opinion, more in line with the wording of the law, which says that the Speaker removes membership and not just updates the membership rolls. From a technical perspective, it's unenforceable to rule otherwise. The script that the Speaker uses runs when it is ordered to run, and it checks only current status. It does not record if a nation CTE'd or moved regions between times when it was run - and therefore there are two potential consequences of any ruling that says that membership is forfeit at the point of violation. Either it forces the Speaker to check all RA nations, every day, thus eliminating the point of the script, or - more likely in my opinion, since the script is too useful to be set aside - it means that the ruling will be unfairly applied to those whom others in the region notice CTEing/leaving (which is more likely the more well-known their name is). Additionally, it creates less confusion with already-concluded matters. If I CTE for five minutes and nobody notices, and then a month later somebody realizes it and reports it to the Speaker, must all votes I cast in the meantime be discarded? Should they be counted? It's not obvious what the correct thing to do is, and it's important in cases where the vote was close or quorum was only barely met.
There is, to be fair, a contrasting concern with saying membership removal is effective when the Speaker notices, in that it allows for back-room whisperings to ensure someone's RA status is not lost. However, I believe such concerns cannot be eliminated from the proposed alternative - the Speaker could notice that someone came out of compliance for five minutes and decide to sit on that information, then bring it out at some politically advantageous time to prevent someone from running for office or to suddenly forcibly remove them from it.
We cannot guard against people engaging in politicking, so we must rule on the law.
As for "promptly", I think we must hand that back without a ruling. It is the job of the RA to determine if the Speaker (or any other official) is acting sufficiently promptly, and there are any number of mechanisms (petition, legislation, censure, recall) to address that concern if it feels there is a problem.
So. Thoughts?
