nix wrote:
On 2/15/24 19:07, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:So, we've discovered on Discord a potential issue that could have wide-ranging effects. Consider the four-day rule as stated in the (purported) Rule 105/23: {A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. } Importantly, this requires "an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used" to be published before each rule change.When was this clause added? I'm wondering what was meant by "method" in it. We use "method" to refer to the mechanism for CAN actions, but we also use it for other things. For example, the "methods of obtaining [ribbons]" in 2438 and voting strength increases in 2632 (which says "by this method" in reference to a continuous occurrence, not something someone does). I think it's feasible to interpret "method" in 105 as just the specifics of the rule change in the proposal itself, meaning the proposal text has to be clear and unambiguous about what it does. Knowing the context it was written in might give some clarity.
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-November.txt Proposal 7710 (AI=3) by G. Defining Reasonable Review Amend Rule 105 (Rule Changes) by replacing: A rule change which would otherwise take effect without its substance being subject to general player review through a reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking effect. with: A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. Submitted on Oct 23, subject "legislative solution", apparently regarding CFJ 3429: https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3429 9 FOR, 2 AGAINST. The AGAINST votes were omd (no comment) and Warrigal: > I think a proposal should be able to effect a rule change without > actually literally containing the text of the rule change. Personally, I think that normal proposal distributions constitute an implicit, yet still sufficiently unambiguous and clear specification of the proposal system as a whole, and furthermore that "its full text" refers to the *rule change* (e.g. "Amend Rule X by replacing Y with Z") rather than the post-change version of the rule, and that a four-factors analysis ought to back up these interpretations. But as usual, it wouldn't be a bad idea to adopt a just-in-case patch proposal.
