How about we put to the test:
CFJ: {The statement "Amend Rule xxxx/yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule
xxxx IFF its revision number is yy.}
My arguments: This seems to be the most obvious interpretation.
On 13 January 2012 20:30, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> At first I thought "putting on the revision number means it breaks if
>> another proposal changes the revision number in the meantime" but then
>> I thought "is it even possible to amend a specific revision number of
>> a rule?" so maybe it breaks regardless. Rulekeepor opinion? -G.
>
> "Amend Rule xxxx/yy" would make a convenient shorthand for "Amend Rule
> xxxx, but only if its current revision number is yy". I suggest
> interpreting it that way by default from now on.
>
> —Machiavelli
