On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2013-07-14 at 16:32 -0700, Lindar Greenwood wrote: > > I'm not sure how we'd go about adding intent-of-rule post-scripts to > > existing rules, especially since the point of some of them is to be > > open to interpretation, but I think it would be delightful for new > > rules proposed to have an intent-of-rule clause included, or at least > > have that be an option. > > This sounds like the sort of thing that's maintained as FLR annotations. > At the moment, those are just references to past judgements, but > explaining what a rule is for is the sort of thing that would both be > interesting and not easy to do as a judgement. > > It'd be easy enough to add them as something the Rulekeepor had to > track, but I'm not sure if there's a good way of forcing/reminding > players to add them. Perhaps if there were a reward for it?
How about Signing Statements: it's the privilege of the Speaker to add one to a Rule (perhaps w/ some support level) within (say) 2 weeks after a proposal modifies said rule. If an author wanted to do it, maybe could be done w/Speaker support. This could go a little further; perhaps a special kind of CFJ could be allowed for the Speaker to make specific rules interpretation of that kind. Maybe this would have the early (or Agora XX) spirit of the Speaker making flavor decisions (still reversible via CFJ). -G.
