On 4/15/13 8:46 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
[snip]
>
>> Also, you probably want it to be clearer how to count announcements of
>> intent.
>> E.g. how many of these would be legal? How many would be legal to resolve
>> twice?
>
> The intent of limiting to one/week is not to stop someone from making a lot
> of
> changes with one intent announcement, but rather to prevent spamming of lots
> of
> intent announcements that are not used (or possibly red herrings). So listing
> several changes in one announcement should be fine.
Note that mutation and amendment are always separate rule changes under R105,
so, under your proposed rule, an intent to do both to a single rule w3o is
either an illegal announcement of intent or a compound intent each part of
which can be objected to separately.
> I also think the case law about being absolutely specific about both
> announcements of intent ("unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
> method") and rule changes ("Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule
> change
> causes that change to be void") would protect against text substitution via
> promises or other indirection tricks.
R101(iv) protects against insufficient notice, quite likely including tricks
where an indirected-to thing is changed suddenly. But if you care about
indirection, referencing text from an unambigiously specified promise is
probably neither unclear nor unambigiuous. I'm pretty sure that there have
been proposals that have copied text from rules into other rules; it's hard to
see how copying text from promises is substantially different.
- woggle
