On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:35 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > Adding a withdrawal clause prevents the > initiator from changing eir mind later, which is IMO generally a good thing > as it means that people can take withdrawal at face value and not have to > remember to object anyway.
For the record I think this is worth doing on its own for these reasons (whether or not it's called "withdrawal of intent"). Some manner of the intender spiking the intent so it needs a new intent to re-start is useful. I was just unsure of the wording (especially since this is the first time I've thought much about how that new "announcement referenced in paragraph (1)" wording since it was enacted). > - The initiator is eligible to support an action by default. > - With N Support is changed to require N+1 supporters (to account for the > initiator). > - Change Agoran consent *only* by requiring more supporters than objectors, > in addition to the existing requirement. No change to Agoran consent > otherwise as fundamentally I think that it's a bit of a weird thing that N > Agoran consent actually requires N*O+1 supporters, where O is the number of > objectors. This brings it in line with usual supermajority requirements > being only N*O. > - Make it so that withdrawing an intent is equivalent to withdrawing > support, if any, and objecting to it, if possible. I agree that the counting of the initiator in support-based actions has bugged me in the past too, and would welcome a change of this nature (whether coupled with the other change or not).
