On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of 
> not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone 
> other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the 
> proposal 3.5+ weeks ago).

The "and/or" in R1698 does seem kind of unclear.

What the rule also included a definition:

To make an "arbitrary rule change" is defined to mean earning 5 coins.

That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer
talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent
about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a
higher-power rule by defining a term) works?

Reply via email to