Oh, I was thinking that the designation of a change as a convergence is itself a(nother) change.
In any case, since this phrasing of the retroactivity clause doesn't rewrite the history of rule changes, I don't think it matters much either way. But I think "to the extent allowed by the rules" works fine, yes. Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing happens later on. -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:22 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu > > wrote: > > > > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > > > > I think this part of R106 accounts for that: > > > > 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. > > > > > > The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, > > though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked. > > How exactly does that apply? Are you saying that because the proposal > CAN apply the change it specified, and that it specified a change > designated as a convergence, it did in fact apply a change designated > as a convergence? I feel a bit uncertain; maybe the proposal fails to > designate its own specified change as a convergence (because the rules > don't explicitly allow a proposal to do that), but does apply the > change. > > Anyway, is the text "To the extent allowed by the rules" harmless at least? > > James
