On 3/1/22 00:41, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: >>> I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the >>> minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from >>> it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of >>> retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be >>> mind-wrecking. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Ørjan. >> I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal >> modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right? >> >> For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is >> successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must >> necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as >> accurate as possible, right? > I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is > ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for > years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule > changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and > everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of > them. > > And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably > doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify. > > Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding. >
Yeah, in the specific case of proposals being enacted, that's probably fine. But there are other ways to cause rule changes, and those matter, too. I understand the problem. I don't understand your proposed solution. Are you suggesting that non-explicit rule changes should just be excluded from the minimal modification, but that the ratification should otherwise proceed normally? -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
