On Sat, 24 Aug 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Both this batch of proposals and the recent ones show that the cost > > of proposals is absolutely no barrier, therefore it serves no purpose > > other than a busywork hassle. The cost should either be a significant > > barrier, or no cost, current system is a pointless compromise. > > Many are disinterested, which is a problem for controls (hence the new > language expressly limiting disinterested proposals), and I disagree > with the notion that cost should be significant. I like this system in > principle in that it limits proposals to either trivial > (disinterested) ones or the ones that people are willing to pay to > have distributed.
Sorry, proof is in the pudding, a system that allows as many proposals as in recent distributions is not in practice limiting.
