DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

2017-10-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: If the majority of valid ballots (valid at the end of the voting period) cast in the decision to adopt this proposal specify "OPTION A" along with their vote, then amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by appending the following paragraph: If a Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

2017-10-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I dislike this extra option, and in particular that it only > requires a majority to apply. I'd really prefer splitting > this out to separate proposals so that AI=3 applies to both of > them separately, or at lesat requiring 3 times as many OPTION A

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

2017-10-14 Thread Alexis Hunt
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 15:48 Kerim Aydin wrote: > I submit this Proposal, AI-3, "Can or can't we?" (pending to wait for > comments): > > -- > [The rules are unclear/silent on whether "CAN, SHALL, MAY"

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

2017-10-14 Thread Aris Merchant
I don't think it should apply to MAY, only CAN or SHALL. MAY should imply permissibility without possibility. CAN makes sense in general and SHALL makes sense because obligations should be possible. -Aris On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I