On 6/5/23 11:52, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >> 8991~ Janet 2.0 Reach clarification > AGAINST: I find the first sentence here hard to parse, so it doesn't > clarify the rule very well. (The content after ", and" should probably > be in a different sentence: it's almost possible to parse it as being a > condition for having an active reach, rather than a consequence of > having an active reach. The unintended reading uses commas > inconsistently, which is probably enough to disambiguate, but I'd > prefer to avoid text that's that hard to understand on a first > reading.) >
I change my vote on the above-referenced decision to ENDORSE ais523. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
