response 26 of 37:

Jan 12 03:16 UTC 2004

Jamie, B can also be phrased so even if A passes, it's overridden.  I 
don't think it's necessary.  I don't think both proposals are going to 
pass.

re resp:22: It is not an obvious consequence that, if my proposal 
fails, then my items are automatically restored.

It seems to me, in that event, someone would still have to make a 
decision to restore my items.  If I were on the staff, in that case, I 
think I'd wait for direction from the users or Board to restore them.

I am not asking the users whether my items should be restored; a 
choice between two actions.  I am asking them to direct that they not 
be restored; a "yes" or "no" on whether to take an action.

response 30 of 37:

Jan 12 05:44 UTC 2004

I'm not trying to "outlegislate" you.  You're probably right, I 
couldn't if I wanted to.  I do hope to prevail when these issues come 
to the vote.

response 32 of 37:

Jan 12 10:21 UTC 2004

It's gonna be an interesting FIGHT

response 34 of 37:

Jan 12 17:02 UTC 2004

Jamie, you you can write a law that can't be overriden by another, then you'll
be the first person in the history of the human race to do so.

response 36 of 37:

Jan 12 19:43 UTC 2004

Some laws certainly specify high standards for overturning them.  The US
Constitution certainly does this.  In those cases it's generally useful to
have some sort of framework saying what laws can set such a standard and what
can't, but that framework has to come from somewhere.

While I'm aware of lots of Internet protocols that explicitly specify that
a more specific rule overrides a less specific rule, I'm not aware of this
being a general legal concept.  Maybe it is -- I'm certainly not an expert
on such things -- but I don't recall ever hearing that.

When I've dealt with lawyers on writing contracts they've generally wanted
to get really specific, spelling out exactly what would happen in various
possible situations.  My impression is that even where it's fairly obvious
what ought to happen in a given situation, writing it down and making sure
it's agreed to in advance is seen as a low cost way to avoid disputes later.

I'd suggest that each of these proposals, before they get voted on, be
ammended to contain language specifying what happens is both proposals pass.
If there's a desire to have one proposal take precedence over the other, both
proposals should say that.