Michael Slone wrote: >This should be ``non-negative rational number'' or (following the >pattern for AIs) ``non-negative integral multiple of 0.1''.
Perhaps. I'd favour "non-negative rational number" myself: it lets us divide as finely as we wish, without getting into numbers that are difficult to work with. >> (c) modify any other aspect of an instrument with power greater >> than its own that would affect that instrument's operation. > >What does this mean? It's meant to regulate changes to the text of a rule or proposal, but also regulate anything that has influence like the text. It is not defined that an instrument actually takes the form of a body of text, so I don't want to limit the wording of this rule. Can you think of a better way to express it? > When a rule is enacted, its number shall be the least natural > number which was not already the number of a rule. We have good reason for the relative looseness of the current regulation. We don't want a repetition of the case of the two rule 1741s. We also don't want to reuse the numbers of repealed rules (which are no longer rules). > When a rule is enacted, its number shall be the least natural > number which was not already the number of a rule. If the > enacting instrument specifies a power for the rule, the rule I prefer to keep the part about how an instrument specifies aspects of a new rule in the same rule that gives instruments permission to make rule changes. We shouldn't build in the assumption that rules are always enacted by instruments. > shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of > the instrument, and the power specified by the instrument; > otherwise, its power shall be one. I think it's more maintainable to put the power restrictions (four, and the power of the instrument) in other rules that govern power. My way the rule changes rule doesn't need to implement (part of) the power restrictions. Is there a particular reason to keep the power rules split up? > title; otherwise, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees > fit. The "may" wording doesn't actually require the Rulekeepor to select a title for an otherwise-untitled rule. I think it should be mandatory. > If the enacting instrument specifies text for the rule, > the rule shall have that text; otherwise, the rule shall have > empty text. Empty text is a useless default. I think enactment without specifying text should fail, not do something silly. This is quite unlike the power of a new rule, where one is a very useful default. > Any such action is a rule change. No other action is a rule > change. Rule changes cannot be performed except by the > mechanism provided by this rule. There was a scam once that hinged on making changes to the rules that were not of a defined class of rule change, hence not a rule change, hence not regulated by the rule changes rule. The wider wording of my version is necessary. >Note that I do not mention amendment numbers. If you want them to be >regulated, you're welcome to add them. That's a separate issue. I'd like to regulate that once I work out the new model that I'm using for revision numbers. >In the spirit of our (former, I think) rule regarding simultaneous >actions, this should allow a batch of rule changes between >publications of the ruleset to be applied in any order as long as the >resulting changes are confluent with the results of applying changes >in the standard order. Essentially, yes. Rule changes always actually occur in the standard order. If one can accurately determine the net effect of a batch of rule changes by considering them in some other order then that is permitted. It is permitted as a calculation technique; it does not signify any looseness or uncertainty about the order in which the rule changes actually occurred. -zefram
