Fair. However, submitting a proposal is a way of making it available
to pend. You're basically putting it out into the world, and saying
that you're ready to have it passed with your name on it. It serves no
other intrinsic purpose, and indeed creates extra work for the
Promotor. That's why, IMHO, it's a better idea to proto it if you're not
sure about it.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you aren't sure it's ready, you shouldn't pend it!
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 19:08 Aris Merchant,
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
>> be a proto, not a proposal.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
>> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I pend this for 1 shiny.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
>> >> >
>> >> > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
>> >> > {{{
>> >> > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal
>> >> > and
>> >> > is
>> >> > ignored when it takes effect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases
>> >> > to
>> >> > be a
>> >> > rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
>> >> > maintain
>> >> > a
>> >> > record of it."
>> >> >
>> >> > [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit
>> >> > which
>> >> > can't hurt anyway.]
>> >> >
>> >> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
>> >> > Proposal to 0.
>> >> >
>> >> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
>> >> > entities. I
>> >> > believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably
>> >> > a
>> >> > good
>> >> > thing to be quite honest.]
>> >> >
>> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by
>> >> > the
>> >> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the
>> >> > power
>> >> > it
>> >> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned
>> >> > at
>> >> > the
>> >> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is
>> >> > incapable
>> >> > of
>> >> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the
>> >> > re-enactment
>> >> > is
>> >> > null and void."
>> >> >
>> >> > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes
>> >> > it
>> >> > to
>> >> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
>> >> >
>> >> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
>> >> > for
>> >> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
>> >> > other,
>> >> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
>> >> > bullet
>> >> > in the first list.
>> >> >
>> >> > [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is
>> >> > used,
>> >> > explicit.]
>> >> > }}}
>> >> >
>> >> > -Alexis
