On Sun, 14 Aug 2011, omd wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3086 > > > > ============================== CFJ 3086 ============================== > > > > Agora's right to participate in the fora is substantially > > limited. > > > > ======================================================================== > > Vaguely: Wasn't there a precedent that partnerships' rights weren't > violated by repealing the partnership rule because that was the > "natural" way for them to die? In that case, the "natural" way for > Agora to participate in the fora would be an appropriate rule-defined > mechanism, and the current lack of one just means Agora doesn't feel > like doing anything. > > R2351 might muck that up.
CFJ 2761. Also the distinction between rights and abilities in 101(i) might be relevant. I'm not sure that's enough though, given that we have a person who we've explicitly restricted with CANNOT (e.g. with R2125 for general actions) rather than a person who "naturally" can't do so. Finally, the way the CFJ itself is phrased here, it's possible that the "limited" is a statement of fact, but not one that we need to do anything about. I really should have called this case about deregistration, which is (perhaps) a "stronger" right. If you're willing to extend your precedent to consider deregistration as well, that would be very helpful. -G.
