On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
> 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?

Until a CFJ is resolved differently, the Rulekeepor agrees with this
more persuasive line.  -G.



Reply via email to