On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
>
> Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
> {{{
> Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and is
> ignored when it takes effect.
>
> Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
> rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a
> record of it."
>
> [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm
> not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit which
> can't hurt anyway.]
>
> Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
> Proposal to 0.
>
> [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other entities. I
> believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably a good
> thing to be quite honest.]Agreed. At some point we should probably require proposals to be instantaneous, but I'm not sure that's within the scope of a fixes proposal. > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at the > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is > null and void." Why shouldn't it set it to the highest power it's capable of in that case? > > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to > work roughly the way you would expect it to.] > > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other, > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet > in the first list. It would be nice if you could add days and weeks, while you're at it. -Aris
