On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 09:53 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If the Proposal text changed mid-stream, then there is more wrong with > the process. For example, the voting notice that started the voting > (R107) no longer refers to the matter being decided. In that case, > the text might be R105 ambiguous (is it the old text mentioned in R107, > or the new text of the change?) and fail that way. > > In other words, we can still review every step of a *specific instance* > of a formal rule process (the Proposal process for a *particular* > proposal) and invalidate it due to the Review requirement. > > You are correct that, if something shortens the Proposal Process > generally (so the whole process no longer meets the criteria) than > the proposal process breaks. That doesn't bother me: there's all > kinds of things that can break the Proposal process, that's why > R1698 exists.
This argument basically boils down to "if there's a process envisaged in the rules, we can check it worked as intended". What makes this different from processes that aren't written down in the rules? Or processes in the rules such as by-announcement, which don't have mandatory review, but certainly make review /possible/? Your judgement's trying to walk an awkward line between "review was possible for this specific case", "review is generally POSSIBLE for the process that was actually used", "review is generally POSSIBLE for all changes envisaged under this rule", and "review is fundamentally required as part of the nature of this process". I think it'd at least help frame the argument if you set out exactly what you think the test is. (I may well agree with you when you do so, depending on what test you come up with.) -- ais523
