On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Pavitra<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> comex wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> �1) We somehow forgot about the rising support requirement to publish
>>> � � � multiple NoVs in the same week.
>>
>> Didn't forget. The extra NoVs were, IIRC, ILLEGAL but VALID (because
>> the Rule used MAY, which is nearly always a mistake)
>
> No, it's a deliberate design decision: pragmatism over platonism.
I don't think so. After all, it has been since changed to CAN, and
was originally written by G., who (no offense) seems to make that
mistake more often in general ("you MAY act on eir behalf to discard
one" in the current ruleset, for example).
Though perhaps it should be changed back to MAY.
--
-c.
