G. wrote: > I submit the following Proposal, AI=3, "no fake CFJs needed": > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing this text: > > 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim > (if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a > relevant existing inquiry case. > > with this text: > > 3. Initiate a CFJ regarding the truth of the claim (if the > subject is actually a matter of law), or cite an existing > CFJ or other public process that has a reasonable > expectation of resolving the matter of controversy. > > [ > Inspired by this from Falsifian: > > I respond to my own CoE by calling a CFJ: "In December, I flipped o's, > > Bernie's and Rance's master switches to Agora". I intend to withdraw > > that CFJ soon, but first I want to use it again for a similar CoE on > > this week's report (to be published soon). > > The "cite an existing CFJ" requirement can lead to dummy CFJs with no > purpose - e.g. i there's a Proposal that's fixing things, that could be > cited too. The "reasonable expectation" mirrors the language of R217. > ] > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nitpick, but could we split the second half (from "cite an existing CFJ...") out into a 4th list item? The paragraph 2201(2)(3) always seemed a bit unwieldy when the other items in the list were only a few words, and now that the part about citations doesn't even refer exclusively to the "initiate a CFJ" situation, it makes even less sense to treat it as a single option. -twg
