Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder
TTttPF
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:06 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
wrote:
>
> I hereby ratify the following document, having received no objection,
> as intended:
> {
> The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076 is 5.
> }
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Ok sure i withdraw this objection.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I object. I would not object to the highest quorum value.
> >
> >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder
Ok sure i withdraw this objection. On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I object. I would not object to the highest quorum value.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder
I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
> {
> The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076 is 7.
> }
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I object. I would not object to the highest quorum value.
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >
> > > You continuing out the quorum uncertainty is going to create decision
> > > uncertainty because we will be unsure of whose votes counted. At some
> > > point, we need to just ratify it and make up our minds.
> > >
> > > I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
> > > {
> > > The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076
> is 5.
> > > }
> > >
> > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:11 AM Timon Walshe-Grey
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, the solution for that is for enough people to vote (in the
> next decision with uncertain quorum) to beat the maximum possible value of
> quorum.
> > > >
> > > > I think decision uncertainty is far more undesirable than quorum
> uncertainty. We're just about coping with having two possible quora for
> each decision, but things will get really confusing if the ruleset diverges
> as well.
> > > >
> > > > -twg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > >
> > > > On July 23, 2018 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You can fix decision uncertainty, but this unavoidably perpetuates
> the quorum
> > > > >
> > > > > uncertainty. Any votes now are valid if and only if the voting
> period has been
> > > > >
> > > > > extended, so their validity for determining quorum in the next
> batch will be
> > > > >
> > > > > uncertain...
> > > > >
> > > > > (Personally I'm abstaining on purpose so I'm decidedly not
> humiliated).
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Quorum on the Agoran Decisions on whether or not to adopt
> Proposals 8066-8076
> > > > > >
> > > > > > is either 5.0 or 7.0. There were 6 votes on each Decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If quorum is 5.0, then I have a week in which to announce the
> result. And if
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it's 7.0, then the voting period is extended by a week. This
> means that I can
> > > > > >
> > > > > > still unambiguously resolve these Decisions, but only if one of
> the following
> > > > > >
> > > > > > slackers attempts to cast a vote soon - even PRESENT:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ATMunn, Corona, CuddleBeam, G., omd, Trigon, V.J. Rada,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gaelan, nichdel, Ouri, pokes, Quazie, Telnaior and 天火狐.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The aforementioned (active) slackers ought to be ashamed of
> themselves for
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bringing this confusion upon Agora. You people are why we can't
> have nice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > things. I expect better of you all in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If quorum on these Decisions is 5.0, then the above is a
> humiliating public
> > > > > >
> > > > > > reminder, courtesy of Rule 2168. (Otherwise, I suppose it is
> merely a
> > > > > >
> > > > > > humiliating public statement.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -twg
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder
I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
{
The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076 is 7.
}
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> I object. I would not object to the highest quorum value.
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> > You continuing out the quorum uncertainty is going to create decision
> > uncertainty because we will be unsure of whose votes counted. At some
> > point, we need to just ratify it and make up our minds.
> >
> > I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
> > {
> > The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076 is 5.
> > }
> >
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:11 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, the solution for that is for enough people to vote (in the next
> > > decision with uncertain quorum) to beat the maximum possible value of
> > > quorum.
> > >
> > > I think decision uncertainty is far more undesirable than quorum
> > > uncertainty. We're just about coping with having two possible quora for
> > > each decision, but things will get really confusing if the ruleset
> > > diverges as well.
> > >
> > > -twg
> > >
> > >
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > >
> > > On July 23, 2018 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You can fix decision uncertainty, but this unavoidably perpetuates the
> > > > quorum
> > > >
> > > > uncertainty. Any votes now are valid if and only if the voting period
> > > > has been
> > > >
> > > > extended, so their validity for determining quorum in the next batch
> > > > will be
> > > >
> > > > uncertain...
> > > >
> > > > (Personally I'm abstaining on purpose so I'm decidedly not humiliated).
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Quorum on the Agoran Decisions on whether or not to adopt Proposals
> > > > > 8066-8076
> > > > >
> > > > > is either 5.0 or 7.0. There were 6 votes on each Decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > If quorum is 5.0, then I have a week in which to announce the result.
> > > > > And if
> > > > >
> > > > > it's 7.0, then the voting period is extended by a week. This means
> > > > > that I can
> > > > >
> > > > > still unambiguously resolve these Decisions, but only if one of the
> > > > > following
> > > > >
> > > > > slackers attempts to cast a vote soon - even PRESENT:
> > > > >
> > > > > ATMunn, Corona, CuddleBeam, G., omd, Trigon, V.J. Rada,
> > > > >
> > > > > Gaelan, nichdel, Ouri, pokes, Quazie, Telnaior and 天火狐.
> > > > >
> > > > > The aforementioned (active) slackers ought to be ashamed of
> > > > > themselves for
> > > > >
> > > > > bringing this confusion upon Agora. You people are why we can't have
> > > > > nice
> > > > >
> > > > > things. I expect better of you all in the future.
> > > > >
> > > > > If quorum on these Decisions is 5.0, then the above is a humiliating
> > > > > public
> > > > >
> > > > > reminder, courtesy of Rule 2168. (Otherwise, I suppose it is merely a
> > > > >
> > > > > humiliating public statement.)
> > > > >
> > > > > -twg
> > >
> > >
> >
