On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> If we assume that "a reasonably public process" is an objective
> standard that does not depend on the context (such as when the notice
> is given, or the nature of the content of the proposed change),
> perhaps notwithstanding holidays, then there must be an exact
> boundary.
I think it probably depends on context a little, e.g. how the start
time intersects with the calendar and perhaps popular time zones.
Arguably that's working against me if the standard is in part to allow
leaving Agora for a weekend (per G.), and my 90 hour period included a
full weekend - although I think that concept is a little dated,
considering how unlikely it is that anyone would have internet access
only during the week these days, making players *more* likely to be
able to review things over the weekend. Under that standard, this
waiting period would be biased down. Admittedly, one of the two
technology enthusiasts of at least college age I have personally ever
heard to have non-24/7 internet access for extended periods of time is
an Agoran player! - ais523 - but e obviously had time to review this
particular change. (The other is Richard Stallman. I'm sure there
are plenty of others, especially when you get out of first-world
countries, but the point is that an average Agoran player is
definitely likely to have 24/7 access, though they may not choose to
use it, and I would be surprised if any current players but ais523
didn't.)
I should get list archive day-of-week stats to measure this...
Oh, and if you *did* happen to read Agora solely during a 9-5 work
week, depending on your timezone, you'd still have 1-2 full days of
notice. (In my timezone, I published my attempt to make the change at
3:19 PM on Tuesday, while the intent was made Friday night.)
> So we have an increasing function whose range is {0, 1} (not
> acceptable, acceptable respectively). It's defined on the real line
> (viewed as an amount of time). Therefore there must be some boundary
> between the acceptable and unacceptable times.
Why would the boundary be exactly 345,600.0 seconds?
Okay, I won't play dumb - because when such a question is adjudicated,
eventually fairness and consistency might require setting an exact
boundary somewhere, and you may as well go with a round number.
However, I don't think it makes sense that the minimum period for "a
reasonably public process" is the exact amount of time required by the
rules for common public processes. This logically implies that the
rules are at the bare minimum of reasonability, while a priori you
would expect them to be somewhat conservative, to provide ample notice
rather than a begrudging "reasonably public". Admittedly, most
dependent actions are not rule changes, although Rule 2430 prescribes
one type.
(Side note: Even the idea that the general review must happen before
the rule change comes mainly from game custom, not the text of Rule
105. If not for custom I would read it as merely requiring review on
an ongoing basis, i.e. basically a requirement that the rules be
published. Seriously, read it again - although I won't claim that
that custom doesn't apply here.)
Empirically - well, more like anecdotally (again, I should get stats,
and could be completely wrong), but based on recent experience with
the players of this game rather than an old fixed standard - I would
say that the distribution of time players are likely to review
something after is bimodal. When there are so few posts, players who
are actively paying attention to Agora mail are likely to read them in
at most one or two days. Those who aren't won't, but they might take
a week or month to show up, or never do so at all before being
deregistered for inactivity...
