Jason wrote:
On 8/9/20 3:28 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
Jason wrote:
Counter-proposal counter-argument:
Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
A Rule that designates
a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
switch as secured (at that power level).
This differs from the zero-fee clause because it's balanced, using
"designates" on both sides, i.e. the other rule needs to have won any
precedence battles already or else this doesn't kick in at all. Or
there are rules that are passive on both sides, e.g. "To allow X is
to allow Y". But the zero-fee clause was imbalanced, written more like
"a rule that /purports/ to do X thereby /does/ do Y", which more
commonly appears in the context of self-ratifying documents (where
the intended subtext is to use this type of imbalance on purpose: even
if the document "purporting to be the X's report" actually isn't, e.g.
because we were wrong about who holds the office of X, we still intend
it to self-ratify unless there's a timely CoE or CFJ about it).
So you think it should use the same verb on both sides? "A rule that
purports to provide a fee-based method with a fee of no assets for an
action instead purports to enable the performance of the action by
announcement."?
Something like that. The more recent proposal probably covers it
adequately already, I'd need to back and double-check.
