On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 12:27 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
> This section of R1728 does not use the phrase "by announcement", so
> it is not defined by the second quoted paragraph of R478 (which
> restricts itself to rule-defined actions that CAN be performed), but
> by the first quoted paragraph. Overriding that paragraph would
> require taking precedence over R478 and/or the (R754-backed)
> natural-language terms used by R478, neither of which is the case.
Well, I think the democratisation didn't work for slightly different
reasons; woggle intended to make a non-existent (at the time) Agoran
decision democratic. As it happens, a proposal was assigned the number
5707, and there was an Agoran decision about it; but a different
proposal (there were 7 in the pool at the time IIRC) could have been
assigned that number, or the number might not have been used due to a
Promotor mistake, for instance. So I don't think that the intent was
unambiguous, and unambiguity is needed for an intent to work.
--
ais523
