On 11/5/25 13:19, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> Was it unambiguous what action 4st was trying to take? It depends on
> whether we consider the action to be "submit a proposal with specific
> text, title and AI" or "submit a proposal". So does "an action" in rule
> 478 refer to a type of action, or to a specific action with all its
> parameters specified?
>
> The ruleset contains evidence that, at least in this case, it refers to
> the former; the evidence is mostly weak, but there's a lot of it and
> that builds up:
>
>  * Rule 2359 seems to separate the action of submitting a proposal from
>    the requirement to specify its text (i.e. the action is only
>    possible if you specify the text in the same message, but that isn't
>    part of the by-announcement restrictions);


Assuming this means Rule 2350, if this argument holds, then I'm not sure
what you would expect the rule to look like if it *did* intend to make
those parameters subject to the by announcement requirement? Because if
I meant to do that, I would write the rule to look roughly as it does
now. "quang a specified X by announcement" vs "quang by announcement,
specifying X" seems mostly to be a function of grammatical convenience.
This often appears to be the length of "X" to me, but e.g. Rule 2221
avoids using a construction like "refile a rule with a specified new
title", which reads a little bit less clearly than the current text to
my eyes.

>  * Rule 1728 has a specific requirement to specify the non-default
>    parameter values of an tabled action that you are intending to take,
>    and this requirement would be redundant if an action inherently
>    included its parameter values;


Is this not the "non-default parameter values" of the "[tabled action]
method", rather than the "action" itself (e.g. this requires explicitly
saying "7 days" in "with 7 days notice")?


Sorry to nitpick, and I don't know that any of this changes the overall
argument, but, well, I enjoy Agora in part because I like talking about
minutiae like this :).

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor

Reply via email to