On 6/23/2020 7:31 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/23/20 10:24 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/23/2020 7:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> On 6/23/20 10:01 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/20 8:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>>>> What I mean to say is that, to my mind, closing a loophole that allows a
>>>>> scam clearly against the intent of the rules is a strict subset of
>>>>> rectifying a bug.
>>>> If it was closing the loophole when there's no scam pending I'd agree.
>>>> But it's different when it's blocking a specific intent that already
>>>> exists. You arguments would expand Certifying Patches to cover any
>>>> proposal at all as long as it also patches things.
>>>>
>>> No, it wouldn't. If there had been any clause in the proposal that had
>>> not rectified a bug, I would have issued an Indictment. If they had
>>> included a granting of a Patent Title or some other attempt to oppose
>>> the scam in the same proposal, I would have issued an Indictment.
>>> Whether you like it or not, you are making use of a bug, which others
>>> are entitled to close.
>> I think a problem with CP is "minimally" is one of the judgement calls for
>> the crime. To me it reads like, if there is *any* more minimal way to fix
>> the bug, then it's a crime. I thought of at least one more minimal way, I
>> think (if measured say by "characters changed in the ruleset").
>>
>
>> 4. A minimal rectification is one that resolves the problem
>> without doing substantially more than is necessary to resolve
>> it. For instance, rectification that uses more slightly words
>> than necessary to resolve the problem may still be minimal,
>> whereas a rectification that makes rule changes unrelated to
>> fixing the problem would not be.
>
>
> I think this makes it relatively clear that one need not minimize
> characters changed in the ruleset to keep the patch LEGAL.
Sorry, forgot to mention, the way I came up with also conceptually much
more straightforward.
