On 2014-10-09 21:34 UTC, Alex wrote:
> One argument the other way that may be worth considering is that just
> because omd's message gave Agorans an opportunity to review the rules
> change, it didn't give any opportunity for that review to have any
> effect. Depending on your interpretation of the rules, this might or
> might not matter.
I was drafting a Brief (which, for now at least, I do not intend to
submit, since I do not feel qualified) which attempts this argument.
I think the questions about the length of time required for review and
the legality of informal processes are relevant to the question of
whether omd's rule change was subjected to review through a public
process. However, even if I agree that they were _subjected_ to such
review (and I think I do), I don't agree that they were _subject_ to
review.
I submit two definitions of "subject", obtained from
www.merriam-webster.com, for consideration:
subject (adjective):
contingent on or under the influence of some later action <the plan
is subject to discussion>
subject (transitive verb):
to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant,
inconvenient, or trying) <was subjected to constant verbal abuse>
Is there precedent for interpreting "subject" in R105 not as "subject",
but "subjected", under these definitions? I take it that there may be at
least a custom of 'standard dictatorship processes' which seem to rely
on the latter interpretation?
