Zefram wrote: > > I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing, > > people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing. > > I don't see the connection here.
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed, you don't pay that cost for a first draft. At the very least, I'd like to see every proposal require Support for distribution, to ensure at least a second pair of eyes has glanced at it. I really think that even requiring announcement "I make it distributable" was enough to make someone pause and think, which is desireable especially when people rush to throw in a bug fix. We don't even require that anymore, that's part of what has given rise to CFJ 1647. > The guillotine, > when it existed, required quite a few signatures and had an element of > voting in itself, so I don't think that would offend the right. I think > generally altering the voting period doesn't contravene proposal rights > so long as it remains a reasonable duration. Again, CFJ 1550 would contradict you: its logic applies to this proto, as the old R106 "all Proposals made and distributed in the proper way shall be voted upon" more or less promised the same right as the proto, even though R106 didn't call it a "right." -Goethe
