I vote as follows, and act on behalf of o to vote as follows:

> 8288  omd                      1.0   Glitteral
Endorse the Treasuror.  This takes away the requirement to specify the
reward amount explicitly in the announcement.  Is it too much of a
burden on the Treasuror to keep abreast of the ribbons and do the
calculations?

> 8296  Aris, G.                 1.0   Divergence
FOR

> 8297  Aris                     2.1   Imminent Failure
FOR

> 8298  Aris, [2]                2.0   Administrative Adjudication v3
AGAINST.  Two concerns here.  (1) I have no idea what "tracked along
with judicial cases" means in terms of practical tracking, and don't
think it should be the Arbitor's job (if that's what's meant), and (2)
officer discretion should mean that there's some means for a current
officer to overrule a past officer (whatever you call reverse
precedent where the new takes the place of the old).

> 8299  Aris, G.                 3.0   The Reset Button v2
AGAINST (as discussed)

> 8300  Aris                     3.0   Patches
AGAINST.  I just noticed that it's not at all clear that the identify
of the "promulgator" moves with the office.  It's also not clear that
"an officer" has to be the officer who issues the memorandum, the way
it reads, once a particular officer issues a memorandum within eir
domain, then *any* officer can do the regulation provided it is
pursuant to the memorandum.

> 8301  Aris, Jason Cobb         3.0   Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping v2
AGAINST.  As above, "tracked as part of eir weekly or monthly report
in a fashion similar to rules" is confusing, what does "fashion
similar" mean, Also this implies it's part of the SLR (weekly?)  The
point of the SLR is it doesn't include this information.

> 8302  Aris                     1.5   Generic Petitions
PRESENT.  Tempted for "against" at the undefined "discretionary power"
overlapping with "power" in general (I have no "discretionary power" -
my power is 0 unless the rules say so).  A better term would be
"discretionary actions" or "discretionary abilities".  Still, seems
like a later-fixable minor confusion and the idea is sound.

> 8294  Bernie, twg              3.0   Authorial Intent
AGAINST (previously discussed)


Thus ends my (and o's) votes for now - no votes on the following, left
here for later reference (phew this is taking some time to go
through):
> 8291  Bernie, [1]              3.0   Interesting Chambers v3.1
> 8292  Bernie, twg              3.0   Self-Ratification Simplification Act
> 8295  Bernie, twg, Alexis      3.0   Rewards Reform Act
> 8303  Aris, [3]                3.0   Contract Patency v3
> 8304  Bernie, twg, Jason Cobb  3.0   Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch

Reply via email to