On 6/27/20 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > So maybe we should "unify" underlying text control. In other words, say > "a legal body of text (LBOD) is a document that can be changed by [some > useful default methods]." Then we might make various texts (contract > texts, proposal texts, regulations etc.) into LBODs [ok not a great name > someone can think of something better]. > > That way we might simplify/reduce the mechanical text on how to change and > track the various types of documents, and keep the actual legal effects of > each document separate and written specifically for each purpose.
I like this idea; maybe I'll write up a draft. > First-time drafts can often have a bit too much in them, especially if the > language its trying to replace is old and has accumulated a lot of edge > cases, which the drafter feels obligated to include so as not to open old > scams/bugs. But the second draft could be a review of "which of this is > *actually* needed right now. I think I'd try a round of clarifying before > complete abandonment. What did you have in mind for clarification? Dropping classes of regulation or just trying to shorten the text as much as possible while keeping general meaning? -- Jason Cobb
