On 4/10/23 15:51, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-04-10 15:41]:
>> On 4/10/23 15:38, juan via agora-business wrote:
>>> I create and submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> {
>>> Title: Standardizing CANs
>>> Author: juan
>>> A.I.: 3.0
>>>
>>> Ammend Rule 478 by replacing its first instance of “may”
>>> with “CAN”.
>>>
>>> Ammend Rule 1789 by replacing its first instance of “may”
>>> with “CAN”.
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> I (unconfidently) don't think the second change is necessary? A person
>> has a natural ability to submit documents, and that doesn't need to be
>> enabled with a CAN.
> 1. It might not be necessary, but its about standartization. Also:
I'm additionally worried that this would make it impossible to submit
(since no method is explicitly given in "CAN submit to the Registrar").
> 2. Does that ability really exist? To “submit” is not to publish. Is
> to do so under a specific intent to perform some task during some
> procedure defined by rules. That's my reading, anyway. It sure works,
> but isn't it clearer to make that action part of the rule's conceptual
> world? Or else we should say “publish” instead of “submit”.
Submission is done by sending a message, which we have held is
unregulated and can be done naturally, e.g. in CFJ3896.
>> (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first
>> instance of 'may'".)
> Why?
Eliminates any chance of accidentally changing the wrong thing due to a
concurrent proposal, and is clearer for the reader on what's being changed.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
