If you aren't sure it's ready, you shouldn't pend it!
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 19:08 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
> be a proto, not a proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
> >> >
> >> > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
> >> > {{{
> >> > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and
> >> > is
> >> > ignored when it takes effect.
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases
> to
> >> > be a
> >> > rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
> maintain
> >> > a
> >> > record of it."
> >> >
> >> > [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but
> >> > I'm
> >> > not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit
> >> > which
> >> > can't hurt anyway.]
> >> >
> >> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
> >> > Proposal to 0.
> >> >
> >> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
> >> > entities. I
> >> > believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably
> a
> >> > good
> >> > thing to be quite honest.]
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by
> the
> >> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power
> >> > it
> >> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at
> >> > the
> >> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is
> incapable
> >> > of
> >> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the
> re-enactment
> >> > is
> >> > null and void."
> >> >
> >> > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it
> >> > to
> >> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
> for
> >> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
> >> > other,
> >> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> >> > bullet
> >> > in the first list.
> >> >
> >> > [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
> >> > explicit.]
> >> > }}}
> >> >
> >> > -Alexis
>
