On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t
see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the
ability to easily clean up some mess.
In addition to what G. listed, there may be cases where it is _required_
; > > identical
> > > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> > > or equal to 6
> > > AGAINST otherwise
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bh
rime, for some N greater than
> > or equal to 6
> > AGAINST otherwise
> > -- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
> > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot
6
> AGAINST otherwise
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)"
> Cc:
>
> On Tue,
to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical
> to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> or equal to 6
> AGAINST otherwise
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
> Date: Nov 27,
There have been quite a few times where proposals in the same batch operate
on the same rule in an uncoordinated way, and someone realizes "hey, if these
are resolved in order, something fails, but in reverse order they both work
as intended". A simple request to the assessor fixes things
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> the ability to easily clean up some mess.
It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need
Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t see any
off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the ability to easily
clean up some mess.
Gaelan
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Jacob Arduino wrote:
>
> Good catch
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135,
Sorry, missed a stipulation:
I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the
remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical
order, the breaking of which is a Class 6 crime
AGAINST
9 matches
Mail list logo
