On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote: > >> Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track >> annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal >> force to the annotations so tracked. > > But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT. > > -> It becomes part of the rule's text => binding.
The actual verbiage is "...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation...". At best, this is self-contradictory. The word "amend" implies that the text is changed; the word "annotation" implies that the text is not changed. -root
