On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 07:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: >>> ======================================================================== >>> If the proposal entitled "Fix recursive SHOULD" was adopted at the same >>> time as this proposal, it is of no effect. >> >> This is an interesting, orthogonal note. Assuming the referent of "it" >> is the "Fix recursive SHOULD" proposal, is it possible for a proposal >> to so inhibit another (both of the same power)? >> >> That last paragraph of R106 would seem to allow one adopted power-3 >> proposal to prevent another from taking effect, but does the timing >> work out? (E.g. this one takes effect either before or after the other, >> so it's either too late or too early). > > Certainly, causing one proposal to /undo/ another works, if they're of > the same power, assuming that power situation is symmetrical at the > time. That would probably be a better way to specify it in this case.
Yah, that would be fine for the same practical effect, although it couldn't wholly undo things - if the previous one changed a rule and then a later one put it back, at the very least an amendment number would change. It would be possible to go further and retroactively reset amendment numbers etc., but that becomes so radical for no purpose it would track a lot of against votes, I think. It was more my curiosity in the theoretical/Platonic sense: I don't think it's possible for one proposal to truly block another from taking effect, as they are both powered instruments at specific (different) instants of in time, but not simultaneously. So I don't think the specification that e used would work. But I was curious if someone else had other interpretations (and if it were possible, it might uncover a bug not a feature). -Goethe
