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.