Nah that was probably just a fake assertion that's pretty wrong, actually. It's probably fine.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > o: "cool cool, everything is completely fine *cries*" > > > > I think if that rule were interpreted as written: to ban any action not > > explicitly specified, it would break a whole lot of things. > > The current case aside, what else would it break? > > Keep in mind, the ban was explicitly written to "break" places where CAN > and SHALL were used without a "by announcement". The proposal that made > the rule change explicitly said that was the purpose, and people voted on > it, so those things *should* now be broken. But we saw that coming (I > think) and other proposals patched many/most of the places that didn't > have a 'by announcement' (I think). > > So, other breakages? > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
