Correct Q18: a hand-off is a transfer, not a lease

Self read the operator's lease example as the general case. It is one
case: a steward can also spin off a new steward permanently. A hand-off
is a transfer of stewardship with no lease field; a lease is two of them.
The date-keyed stewardship stands because it is what lets a repo come
back at all.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Meta Vens 2026-09-16 17:59:53 +02:00
commit 76167f0a2a

View file

@ -3220,11 +3220,16 @@ operator may simply want recorded.
The operator: "I actually was not planning for such handoffs but I can
definitely see it being useful for when a campaign has cross-cutting
concerns and the main steward for it must lease another steward's
authority over a repo to resolve it." A hand-off is therefore a lease:
authority over a repo moves to the campaign's steward for the campaign's
duration and returns. Stewardship keys by repo and assignment date; the
in-force stewardship is the latest not withdrawn; Cut 12 admits the
return as a second hand-off. Mapped as a leaf cut with Q17's.
authority over a repo to resolve it." Self first read that as "a hand-off
is a lease"; the operator corrected it the same day: "A hand-off is not
*always* a lease. We might start with, say, Odin as steward over a whole
swarm of infra tools, and spin off a new steward only when the workload
justifies it. Odin wouldn't be getting it back in that case." So a
hand-off is a transfer of stewardship, symmetric and final as a record; a
lease is two transfers and carries no field of its own. Stewardship keys
by repo and assignment date; the in-force stewardship is the latest not
withdrawn; a return, when there is one, is an ordinary second hand-off.
Mapped as a leaf cut with Q17's.
## Target contradictions for Self to reconcile