On Thursday 02 August 2007, Zefram wrote: > comex wrote: > >This does not fix CAN-allowing-action vs. MAY-allowing-action. > > Both terms are perfectly well defined. "CAN" is used in several places > to make something possible where it would otherwise be impossible. > The sole use of "MAY" has a sensible meaning, of giving permission, > but appears to be superfluous. > > R1607 says "The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it ...". > This makes it clear that the Promotor CAN distribute a proposal at any > time (it is always POSSIBLE for the Promotor to distribute a proposal). > It doesn't need to use "CAN" or "POSSIBLE" to express this; it's implied > by the definition of distribution, which predates MMI. > > By default the Promotor MAY (is PERMITTED to) distribute a proposal > at any time. The first sentence of the second paragraph of R1607 > states that explicitly, which is redundant. The second sentence of > that paragraph indicates that the Promotor is REQUIRED to distribute > proposals in certain situation; the redundant permission thus appears > to have a clarifying role. > > -zefram
What if the ordinary language bit was a bit less clear and said: The Promotor distributes a document by... In ordinary language this would be equivalent to the actual "The Promotor distributes a proposal". With MMI, the Promotor would be able to distribute a blank piece of paper if e wanted to. Or what about: A player distributes a proposal by... (for deputising ;) Rule 1607 is not the only relevant rule. Consider, for example, rule 2161. CAN the player assign ID numbers?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
