EAV

I don’t think “add and remove a full stop” counts as the proposal modifying the rule since there is no net change; however, this isn’t required to comply with pending mandates anyway.

Nice try; Proposals make changes to rules when they’re enacted, not when they’re posted, so this would make everything Misfit.

bucky raises an interesting point but I don’t wanna lose anymore empathy…

I don’t think I agree with that - proposals can clearly make changes to the ruleset - I think that’s an overly restrictive interpretation of the language. I would not vote for a CfJ that argued that the sentence as written didn’t apply.

To me that just smacks if Bucky trying to preserve his status as most recent enacted author.

Contrast with the wording of the existing entry: “It would, if enacted…”

The ambiguity this proposal fixes would arguably paper over the timing issue.

But the first revision makes the new Mandate unambiguous, that “when a proposal is posted” it “makes changes to not more than 4 rules”.

Although it might instead accept being unable to change rules as “not more than 4”, in which case it’s a no-op.

per Bucky

I think being unable to change rules means that you’re changing no more than 4 rules, because you aren’t changing rules at all, and will be vetoing on that basis.

in this case, I trust Josh more than Bucky.