On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 21:52 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: >> The last ratified ruleset was published on April 7, 2014. Since then, >> the following proposals have been adopted without having had an >> adoption index specified upon submission: > > I think you can plausibly argue that the referent of "its" in rule 106 > is ambiguous; if it refers to the decision rather than the rule, nothing > is broken.
I think the phrase "its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index", where the first "it" is a type of thing (proposal) that can have an adoption index, and other "it"s referring to the same are present on both sides of the phrase, pretty unambiguously refers to the proposal's adoption index. > Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined > value. I'd have thought the most sensible resolution of this situation > is to calculate the result as 4. I find this more persuasive. Anyone want to call a CFJ?
