On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:04 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:01 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here's another step towards solving the proposal rewards problem. Let > > me know what you all think. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Interested Proposals Redux > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: Murphy, Ørjan, nch > > > > > > [I know the overlap with office interest is a little confusing, but this > > is traditional. If we have to change one, I'd prefer it be office > interest.] > > > > Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text: > > > > Interestedness is an untracked proposal switch with values > > "disinterested" and "interested" (default). The author of a > > proposal CAN flip its Interestedness to disinterested > > by announcement. > > > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing this text: > > * Being the author of an adopted proposal: > > with this text: > > * Being the author of a proposal that was interested when > > adopted: > > > > If there is a rule entitled "Certifiable Patches", amend it by > > appending to the first paragraph: > > > > When a proposal is pended by this method, it becomes disinterested. > > I like the idea, but my concern is that Certifiable Patches allows > people other than the author to use it to pend, and I feel as if that > would be unfair to the author unless there is some way for them to > flip it back to interested, such as by paying the pending cost; > however, to implement such a mechanism would increase the tracking > load for those proposals because we would have to also track whether > it had been paid. > I thought of that. The simple answer is for the author to pend when e submits the proposal, request that no one certify the proposal when e submits it, or retract and resubmit after it's certified. Further mechanical handling doesn't seem necessary? -Aris
