> On Sep 13, 2017, at 2:17 AM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > >> Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit >> better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts: >> >> 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under >> principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, >> and >> >> 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, >> by reference (through links into the archives). >> >> The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, >> while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies >> without losing those transactions when ratification happens. >> >> Does this seem reasonable > > We have to walk a thin line of ratifying the effect of diffrent rules > without ratifying the rules themselves. Honestly, I'd be tempted just > to ratify a secreatary's report with all the "correct" info.
I thought about that, and I’m not at all sure it’s sufficient. I would want to make sure every action that “should” have happened actually did happen - and many of those actions have effects beyond the Secretary’s report. The biggie is proposals: anything that threatens the validity of submitting or pending proposals threatens the validity of the rules, and - as things stand - we _definitely_ have some actions in the state where their intended effects on the rules are not their actual effects on the rules. It’s hard to overstate just how fragile Agora is at this moment. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
