Proposal for Clarification of "Should" Statements as Mandatory in Kleros Policy Documents

Proposal
2

How possible that 2 different users talk about “should” roughly at the same time?

See also: The problem of 'should' statements in primary documents. General Court Policy amendment proposal to clarify that they are to be interpreted as imperative (and other suggested solutions)

image
image2230×362 52.5 KB

I always assumed that SHOULD is as complying with RFC 2119: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

  1. SHOULD This word, or the adjective “RECOMMENDED”, mean that there
    may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
    particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
    carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
  1. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase “NOT RECOMMENDED” mean that
    there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
    particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
    implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
    before implementing any behavior described with this label.

RATIONALE

Kleros is blockchain is tech. Therefore rules of tech apply.