On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:26 AM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> =================== CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== >>> >>> If the proposal entitled "Reassign the name" passed, it would >>> successfully null-amend a Rule with Power> 1.7. >>> >>> ======================================================================== >> >> Trivially FALSE; the proposal lacks the Power to amend a Rule of greater >> Power. > > Wouldn't this be trivially TRUE per your statement that null-amendment > is not actually any change? >
I interpreted it 'null-amend' as 'an amendment with no substantiative change', which would still be prohibited if it could exist. I wrote that judgment before the previous one; citing the first judgment would have been a valid alternate way to resolve it, but it would still be FALSE (since then a null-amendment could not exist)
