Goethe wrote: > I agree with Zefram in that I greatly prefer the collective-decision model, > but notwithstanding what the CotC is supposed to track, as a panelist I (and > others) have had trouble knowing what was consented to (e.g. if a panelist > consents to a judgement I propose, but I mildly tweak the argument, does > e still consent? Was that general statement of agreement e just made an > actual consent?) Perhaps a compromise is to just change "with consent" > to "with Support" thus slightly formalizing the collective approval, > providing a record of consent if the CotC chooses to track it, and speeding > things along by making it clear when a panel action is formally proposed > rather than merely being chatted about.
I would support this. Spotting consent in a-d is non-trivial.
