Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which
Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter),
P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do
you think needs to be further clarified?
What happens if the ratified material, despite becoming "completely
true and accurate" per R1551, is self-inconsistent? This arguably
doesn't apply to the recent instance:
> I have interpreted these notes in the history as qualifying the table
> as well as the history. I would have previously objected to the table
> if those notes did not exist. I think, therefore, that the totals are
> still conditional on CFJ 1688 after the ratification.
but consider a hypothetical case in which a typo led to a flat-out
discrepancy between two sections, both of which were then ratified.
