On 24 Aug 2013 21:40, "Kerim Aydin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > >
With the resolution, disinterested proposals are now w/o 2 objections, apart from one free proposal per week.
