On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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). > > For safety and cleanliness, it should be phrased as a free definition (i.e. “For a proposal to depend on another proposal means for it to take effect if and only if...”). This would make the rule one long definition, which the proposal would be applying against itself. In other words, it would act solely as shorthand for the existing way we do things. The one tricky bit is the section on deferred resolution, because you have to say something like “If a proposal states that it depends on another proposal, it cannot be resolved unless...”.
I think that dependency should be a CANNOT for the Assesor, rather than a SHALL NOT, because it ensures that any mistake isn’t legally binding. The resolution of a proposal is self-ratifying in any case, so it won’t inject long term uncertainty. -Aris
