On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by > > r105 standards? > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > inherently ambiguous. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
I CFJ 'Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.' I bar Janet. (I'd bar G. too if I could - neither of them is biased, but I'm hoping for a third opinion here.) Context can be found in the thread above. -Aspen
