Typo, see below. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 6:55 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 Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a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 [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm not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 [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other entities.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.]
>
> 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
"defined" should be "defined".
> is incapable of setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the
> re-enactment is null and void."
>
> [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.
This line doesn't make much sense.
>
> [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
> explicit.]
> }}}
>
> -Alexis
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
