On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one. Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing precedents, especially given that it has to be safe. And I think those are good precedents which should darn well be codified. If anyone has simplifications though (including complete alternate approaches), I'd be happy to hear them. As soon as the safety concerns are dealt with, I'll see if I can come up with anything simpler myself.
I thought playing with "timelines" was a really clever concept actually but I got bogged down working my way through various things that work due to precedents, to see if it codified them or changed them (sometimes "codifying precedent" makes something rigid and brittle that was formerly flexible or could be overturned, so that's the kind of thing I was looking for). I did find a (possible) technical bug or at least something that seemed off and worth asking about (will have to go look again to remember), though it was after the voting period when I did so.
Speaking of those safety concerns, I'm a tad peeved that several people voted against the proposal on the basis that "this might be dangerous", including you, and yet no one seems to be able to explain to me exactly what danger is involved so that I can mitigate it. Yes, it might be dangerous, that's a dangerous area of rule making, and it's quite fair to have high standards. That being said, I'd like to know exactly what the standards are so that I can meet them. At this point it feels like people are saying "there might be problems" without providing anything approaching a direction I can go in to persuade them otherwise.
Very valid point and I'm sorry about that - since I was in "voting mode" and not "editing a proto mode" I think I took my reflections on the complexity/inelegance and translated that into "this is muddling enough to me that it might be worrying". I should have translated as "let's think about this some more I'm not quite comfortable yet" rather "unfamiliar = omg danger danger!". (I still might have voted against this version due to the "think about it some more" aspect, but I shouldn't have been alarmist like that). -G.
