On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Paul VanKoughnett wrote: >> Actually, a proposal to do that just had its voting period end! I don't >> know if it passed, I'm (obviously) hoping it did. It does have the >> problems you mentioned with an objector holding it up indefinitely... >> that's why the other method is "pay a note to make it distributable." >> There's enough currency floating around that if someone is objecting >> indefinitely, a person can pay (or if broke, ask someone else to pay). >> The money barrier is enough to make sure that people read things at >> least twice before paying to distribute it, maybe? -G. >> > > Yeah, I did see that proposal. For some reason I thought it hadn't > been distributed. If it passes, we should get rid of W3S in any case. > People are going to use it immediately if they are objected to, and > there will still be a lot of spam.
There's two proposals: last week's had pay and w/o1O, and got rid of W3S. Voting period ended on that. Quick count looks like it passed but it's close and I may have missed a vote or two. This week's proposal has all three methods; the pledge now makes the W3S the same thing as by announcement so that makes distributability more or less meaningless. -G.
