[Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

[Edward Welbourne]

On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 10:52:10 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
>> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
>> what they mean

Thiago Macieira (8 February 2017 21:37)
> That's the difference between the Roman Civil Code / BGB-style laws
> and the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence laws work. On one, you have to
> specifically say what you mean, otherwise it's outside the law; on the
> latter, the intent of the lawmarker is valid. :-)

Only for as long as the lawmaker is available to consult, as to intent,
and is a single person - if there's more than one, sooner or later,
their differences of intent shall surface.  Even then, if the intent of
the lawmaker doesn't match the explicit wording of the law, a suspicion
is apt to arise of partiality (i.e. the opposite of impartiality)
whenever an appeal to the lawmaker's intent arises.  It is better, thus,
to refine the wording of the law, each time that intent is consulted, so
that it more faithfully reflects the intent.  Which we have just done.

Furthermore, having the intent plainly stated in the law makes it easier
for those who must follow it to be confident of which actions they may
take within it and which would violate it.  This is far better than
leaving them to be surprised when they discover what they have done
violates (the unstated intent of) a law they thought they had followed.

	Eddy.