On 1/13/2019 3:42 PM, [email protected] wrote:> Also, a "this
proposal does not work unless" needs a pretty high power,
> which feels like it shouldn't be necessary for this. You might be able
> to get away with defining "this proposal is dependent on proposal X" to
> mean "this proposal can only pass if proposal X passes", but even
> that's on shaky ground if the proposal outpowers the rule.
A proposal has to take effect to apply its definitions (if it's defined
as a "dependent proposal" internally, that definition clause wouldn't
take effect if the proposal doesn't). How about allowing the proposal to
"take effect" as a whole, but stating that the clauses contained within
don't make further changes, e.g.:
If a Proposal clearly and explicitly states it is a dependent proposal,
no other clauses in the proposal are applied if its dependencies have
not taken effect.
This works (maybe?) because R106 explicitly defers to other rules to figure
out which individual changes are applied:
Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
changes that it specifies.
and the fact that, once the proposal takes effect as a whole, it has the
power as an instrument to nullify the rest of its clauses from being
applied (it uses the proposal's power to do so, not any rule's power).
