On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, omd wrote:
> R2125 uses the phrase "as allowed by the rules". "Where permitted by
> other rules" might be slightly different when multiple rules are in
> conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required
> explicitness. So any permission that
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
>>
>> in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
>> "permitted by other rules".
>
> Permission can be implicit, in the sense of "not prohibited"; R101(i)
>
omd wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
>
> in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
> "permitted by other rules".
Permission can be implicit, in the sense of "not prohibited"; R101(i
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization
in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not
"permitted by other rules".
Actually, let's just leave the rules alone. On further thought,
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Â Â Â Where permitted
>> Â Â Â by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
>> Â Â Â part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
>
> This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power con
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 23:56 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to
> avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to
> perform higher-power changes.
It wasn't accidental at all. Rule 106 used to authorize proposals to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Where permitted
> by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as
> part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.
This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power conflict),
because it only copies
scshunt wrote:
> It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to
> avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to
> perform higher-power changes.
I think the proto would preserve that, as it deliberately parallels
Rule 105's "Where permitted by other
On 11-01-16 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
I think it's reasonable to interpret Rule 106's "it applies those
changes" as implying "it may apply those changes", but it should be
clarified now that it's been pointed out. (Rule 105 explicitly says
that instruments can make rule changes, so no problem t
scshunt wrote:
> On 11-01-16 10:09 PM, omd wrote:
>> note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is
>> regulated by c), just about any proposal that did anything nontrivial
>> besides rule changes would have failed under your interpretation due
>> to e)
>
> Yes.
I think it's rea
On 11-01-16 10:09 PM, omd wrote:
note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is
regulated by c), just about any proposal that did anything nontrivial
besides rule changes would have failed under your interpretation due
to e)
Yes.
-scshunt
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Rule 106 does not allow the proposal to do anything. It merely causes the
> proposal to act. The proposal is still restricted by what any rules,
> including R2125, say.
note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is
regulated by
On 11-01-16 09:21 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
So? Rule 478 doesn't secure the flipping of a forum's publicity,
so any rule-approved process (including an adopted proposal taking
effect per Rule 106) satisfies R2125(c) and (e).
Rule 106 does not allow the proposal to do anything. It merely causes
the
On 11-01-16 08:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
omd wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 11-01-16 05:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal 6947 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Wooble
New Forum
Flip the Publicity of the mailing list with the address
agora-pub...@googlegroups.com
omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt
> wrote:
>> On 11-01-16 05:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> Proposal 6947 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Wooble
>>>
>>> New Forum
>>>
>>> Flip the Publicity of the mailing list with the address
>>> agora-pub...@googlegroups.com (on the we
15 matches
Mail list logo
