As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
be a proto, not a proposal.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I pend this for 1 shiny.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> 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 Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to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 [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but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 [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other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.]
>> >
>> > 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."
>> >
>> > [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 makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
>> > explicit.]
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > -Alexis
