Well, as I indicated in my comments, I think the grandfather clause is the source of the real problem. But the 15% rule was a previous rule, again, to avoid the hard question about what the real numbers should be. So if I were to take my principal position to its extreme, I would say we ought to do away with that rule as well.
Now, if in fact there's a sense that, having fixed the number, we ought to have a transition to it, then something like the 15% rule might be appropriate. But it does seem to me that both of these rules are different ways of avoiding the real questions of how big a House we need, what it does, and how fairly apportioned it should be.
So in principle, I'm opposed to both rules, but I understand that if you wanted to fix the size, you might want something like the old 15% rule as a way of transitioning.