Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
On 4/10/23 14:57, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: (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. For instance, I couldn't tell you what the first instance of "may" is in either of those rules. I'd rather not have to crossreference the proposal with the rule. This is why I always do something like "replace [sentence or clause] with [sentence or clause]" even if one or two words are all that's changing. The only exception for me is when something is getting renamed, such as "replace all instances of 'Whatsit' with 'Whosit'" where the surrounding context is irrelevant. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
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
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Standardizing language
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:
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”.
> (Also, it might be better to include context rather than just "first
> instance of 'may'".)
Why?
--
juan
