Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

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  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 Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to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 [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm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 [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other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
>

Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Aris Merchant]

I pend this for 1 shiny.

-Aris

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt  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 Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a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

BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

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