On Sun, 2022-01-30 at 17:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > I don't see anything preventing the intent from reading "I intend to > repeal that rule and then this one" i.e. I'd read it as the rule doesn't > prescribe the order of repealing, but the announcement of intent can (and > must in order to succeed). Clarification is certainly a good idea though.
I can't affect the operation of a rule that has greater power than me in any way that the rule doesn't specifically allow me to. Choosing the repeal order is probably something that "affects the instrument's operation" (rule 2140). That said, I just noticed that rule 2140 can plausibly be understood only to restrict persistent changes, rather than one-time clarifications. This might be a loophole in the Power system? (I note, however, that rule 217 explicitly allows low-Power rules to make reasonable clarifications to higher-Powered rules, but doesn't make that allowance for low-Power entities other than rules; so maybe it bars this even if rule 2140 doesn't.) -- ais523
