Re: [s-d] [s-b] It's no longer a proto

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:22 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:42:10 -0500, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> {{
>> Repeal all rules in order by number.
>>
>> Enact the following rules in order by number:
>
> Once the emergency rule is destroyed, there is no authority to destroy Rule
> 126 and no authority to create new rules. So this would fail as well.

Hm. I'm not sure I agree, but I lean toward yes. And of course I am
willing to destroy and resubmit yet again to make it unambiguously
functional, but first I'd like to make sure there aren't any other
problems with this plan.

If I change the above by only having it not destroy the emergency rule
(leaving tweaks to the emergency protocol to be handled in non-refresh
proposals) and merely grant the emergency rule a Chutzpah score, will
there be any remaining problems anyone can see yet?

 - teucer
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss