On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It doesn't need to use the word "MAY" specifically. The definition of > "MAY" from R2152 is, "Performing the described action does not violate > the rule in question." So if performing the action in question does > not violate R101 -- on which point R101 is explicit -- then the person > in question MAY perform it.
Sure, but "explicitly state". I don't remember where that phrase came from, but my argument uses it. There's also my other argument for FALSE. > I think this is a false dichotomy. For example, take this sentence > from R2019, which structurally appears to fall into your first > category: "An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally > CAN be created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to > modification by its backing document." Or similarly, from R2019: "The > Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting > period...." Do you mean to suggest that asset creation and veto are > not regulated by R2125(c)? (Note they may still be regulated by > R2125(e), but that is beside the point.) Yep. The first of those is regulated by R2125(e), so being regulated by R2125(c) isn't necessary, in addition to that other point I made. I guess the second isn't actually regulated at all (except perhaps by R2125(e)), but it is only the Wielder of Veto vetoing an ordinary decision in its voting period that causes the decision to have a higher quorum. So actually, I suppose anybody can veto anything, but it usually has no effect. I veto the following signature: --Ivan Hope NTTPF
