Hi, On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 12:08:32PM -0500, Avri Doria wrote:
Whether Milton and I, or you and I, ever agree of what is in scope or out of scope is irrelevant. Can we show that the text is equivalent, is the question I think needs answering.
Overall, I agree with Avri's view that testing the new text against past decisions is a good heuristic for checking that the new text doesn't change the mission. I would hope, however, that we'd understand the test such that, if any past decision were not obviously supported by the new text, the new text would not necessarily be judged problematic. After all, the new text is supposed to clarify. It could be that, at the margins, particularly contentious past cases would be decided differently with appeal to the new text. That would be ok, I think, as long as those cases were the contentious ones. I'm aware this yields the new problem that we decide what cases are contentious. I have no idea how to do that. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com