On 7/5/2020 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Now, the above arguments make it seem like there's absolutely no such > thing as a "bug" wherever text was voted on by the legislature. In that > respect, it is quite reasonable to apply the "bug" designation to clearly > malfunctioning text, if the malfunction is direct and limited in scope. > For example, if a CAN is missing a "by announcement", and the context of > surrounding text makes it clear that the text can only work if an explicit > method is put in, there's a bug (such an omission is not a R2626(2) > "error" in that it might still have some functionality and meaning, so the > mistake is functional not textual, which makes it a "bug" not an "error" > by R2626). The bug itself must be very limited and minimal in scope to be > considered a bug, and mere legislative regret doesn't cut it.
Addendum: an example I didn't get into (because it would take a couple paragraphs) was what killed originally-intended scam method: the fact that the "withdrawing objections" 24-hour timeout applied to Notice would pass as a true "bug" IMO. But only after doing detailed historical research, which shows that Notice wasn't defined when that text was put in, and nobody thought that it would apply to Notice during the various re-writes of dependent actions, and it breaks a specific thing that's self-contained within the rule (and also against common sense somewhat). -G.
