Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:51 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can
> think
> >> of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to
> ratify
> >> the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the ID
> >> number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}
> >
> > I object, not because I disagree with the principle, but because of the
> > time paradox. Identify the proposal via some means other than number
> > (e.g. via its title and submission date).
>
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{The
> proposal entitled "Assets v7" by Aris has ID number 7864.}}
>
> -Aris
>
I do so.

-Aris

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Owen Jacobson]

TTttPF.

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> I vote as follows:
> 
>> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Pend fee 
>> (sh.)
>> -
>> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6
> 
> FOR. Aris, your commitment to making this happen is commendable. I think this 
> revision still has some weak spots, but they’re survivable and I’d much 
> rather work on them in light of practice than send this around again in the 
> hopes of getting it completely perfect before we actually try it out.
> 
>> 7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial UpdatesQuazie 6
> 
> FOR. Really nice work, both of you.
> 
>> 7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7Quazie 6
> 
> FOR. I have this faint suspicion this is part of a scam, but I can’t see it. 
> In any case, per recent CFJs, this is a necessary fix, and if it’s part of a 
> scam I trust Quazie to make it an amusing one.
> 
>> 7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)  Quazie 6
> 
> AGAINST. Insufficient specificity as to what qualifies as “trivial.” This 
> effectively guts the Shiny economy - which we can do, but I’d prefer we did 
> it through a proposal intended to do so. I like the idea, though, and this is 
> a nice alternative to batching up trivial changes into omnibus proposals to 
> make the pend fee “worthwhile."
> 
>> 7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges   Quazie 6
> 
> AGAINST. I like the idea, but the execution feels incomplete.
> 
>> 7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders...[4] Quazie 6
> 
> FOR. I’m looking forward to CuddleBeam setting up an unamendable organization.
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
>> of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to ratify
>> the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the ID
>> number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}
>
> I object, not because I disagree with the principle, but because of the
> time paradox. Identify the proposal via some means other than number
> (e.g. via its title and submission date).

I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{The
proposal entitled "Assets v7" by Aris has ID number 7864.}}

-Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
> of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to ratify
> the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the ID
> number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}

I object, not because I disagree with the principle, but because of the
time paradox. Identify the proposal via some means other than number
(e.g. via its title and submission date).

-- 
ais523

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Aris Merchant]

Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to ratify
the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the ID
number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}

-Aris

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:30 PM Quazie  wrote:

> 7958?  This is good because 7858 is indeed a proposal already, but the out
> of order numbering is confusing.
>
> Sorry I didn't catch this earlier.
>
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM Quazie  wrote:
>
>>
>>> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Pend fee
>>> (sh.)
>>> -
>>> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6
>>>
>>
>>