DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-10 Thread D. Margaux
Here’s a revised proto proposal for cleaning up dependent actions. I think it’s 
markup compliant and addresses Gaelan’s comments. Any further comments?

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.”

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{
The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions" (N is 
1 unless otherwise specified):

1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8 
("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand 
for this method with N = 1);

3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum 
of 1;

4. With Notice; or

5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

}

Enact a new rule (power=3) entitled “Performing a Dependent Action” with this 
text:

{

A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by 
a set of one or more dependent actions defined in Rule 1728 thereby allows em 
to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true:

1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that 
unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the 
action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used (including the value 
of N and/or T for each method);

2. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule was made: 

  * within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be 
performed With N Support; 

  * between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be 
performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; or 

  * between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be 
performed With T Notice;

3. At least one of the following is true: 

  * the performer is the initiator; 

  * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a 
rule-defined position now held by the performer; or 

  * the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action 
depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule 
authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from 
performing it;

4. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules; and

5. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of 
intent referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule. 

The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters and objectors if the action is to 
be taken with Agoran Consent. 

}


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley

On 2/8/19 6:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements. 
It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not 
recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does support *, -, 
and + for unordered lists.

We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown 
support.


I think we could make it markdown compliant, and still formatted reasonably 
well, if we break it into two rules. I’m happy to take a shot at drafting that 
unless people are opposed to that idea.


This isn't even the only rule that suffers with same-style sublists. 
Rule 1023, 2201, and most likely others have numbered sublists inside 
numbered sublists.


One easy option is to replace some of the lists with bulleted lists.

--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by 
> Rule 2531 as of revision 3.

Ha! That was my fault too. I introduced those formatting issues. 

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it 
> implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, 
> it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does 
> support *, -, and + for unordered lists.
> 
> We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown 
> support.

I think we could make it markdown compliant, and still formatted reasonably 
well, if we break it into two rules. I’m happy to take a shot at drafting that 
unless people are opposed to that idea. 

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it 
implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended 
markdown, it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of 
letters. It does support *, -, and + for unordered lists.


We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain 
Markdown support.


On 2/8/19 6:39 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the 
same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change?

Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of 
having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that wouldn’t 
fix the second level list.

Or maybe no one else is as bothered by the formatting of this rule as I am...?


On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses 
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s 
not a dealbreaker for me.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of 
formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't 
quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the 
confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I suspect 
this proposal breaks that.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

  1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
 than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
 N = 1);

  2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
 Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

  3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
 with a minimum of 1;

  4. With Notice; or

  5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

  1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
  perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

  2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
  the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
  the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
  Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

  3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
  the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
  if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

  4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
  applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
  (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
  obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
  and method(s) to be used (including the value of
  N and/or T for each method);

  5. At least one of the following is true:

A. The performer is the initiator;

B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
   due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
   performer; or

C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
   the action depends on support, the performer has
   supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
   performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
   performing it,

   6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
by other rules; and

   7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
   the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
   (b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list 

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley
Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for 
example by Rule 2531 as of revision 3.


On 2/8/19 6:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses 
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s 
not a dealbreaker for me.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of 
formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't 
quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the 
confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I suspect 
this proposal breaks that.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

   1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
  than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
  N = 1);

   2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
  Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

   3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
  with a minimum of 1;

   4. With Notice; or

   5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
   perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

   2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
   the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
   Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

   3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
   if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

   4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
   (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
   obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
   and method(s) to be used (including the value of
   N and/or T for each method);

   5. At least one of the following is true:

 A. The performer is the initiator;

 B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer; or

 C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
the action depends on support, the performer has
supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
performing it,

6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
 by other rules; and

7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.

}





--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread D. Margaux
I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the 
same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change?

Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of 
having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that wouldn’t 
fix the second level list.  

Or maybe no one else is as bothered by the formatting of this rule as I am...?

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses 
> it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s 
> not a dealbreaker for me. 
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> 
>> I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of 
>> formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't 
>> quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the 
>> confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I suspect 
>> this proposal breaks that.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>> 
>>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> 
>>> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
>>> identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
>>> under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
>>> player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
>>> arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
>>> 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
>>> first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
>>> is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
>>> improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
>>> slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
>>> parse.
>>> 
>>> Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
>>> want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
>>> read.
>>> 
>>> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
>>> Author: D Margaux
>>> Co-author: Gaelan
>>> AI: 3
>>> 
>>> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:
>>> 
>>> {
>>> 
>>> (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
>>> actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):
>>> 
>>>  1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
>>> than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
>>> N = 1);
>>> 
>>>  2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
>>> Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
>>> 
>>>  3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
>>> with a minimum of 1;
>>> 
>>>  4. With Notice; or
>>> 
>>>  5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>>> 
>>> (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
>>> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
>>> section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
>>> all of the following are true:
>>> 
>>>  1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>>  perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
>>> 
>>>  2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
>>>  the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
>>>  the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
>>>  Agoran Consent, or With Notice;
>>> 
>>>  3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
>>>  the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
>>>  if the action is to be performed With T Notice;
>>> 
>>>  4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
>>>  applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
>>>  (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
>>>  obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
>>>  and method(s) to be used (including the value of
>>>  N and/or T for each method);
>>> 
>>>  5. At least one of the following is true:
>>> 
>>>A. The performer is the initiator;
>>> 
>>>B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
>>>   due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
>>>   performer; or
>>> 
>>>C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
>>>   the action depends on support, the performer has
>>>   supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
>>>   performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
>>>   performing it,
>>> 
>>>   6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
>>>by other rules; and
>>> 
>>>   7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
>>>   the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
>>>   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
>>>   (b)(3).
>>> 
>>> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if 

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Gaelan Steele
Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses 
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s 
not a dealbreaker for me. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of 
> formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't 
> quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the 
> confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I suspect 
> this proposal breaks that.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
> 
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
>> 
>> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
>> identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
>> under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
>> player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
>> arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
>> 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
>> first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
>> is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
>> improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
>> slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
>> parse.
>> 
>> Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
>> want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
>> read.
>> 
>> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
>> Author: D Margaux
>> Co-author: Gaelan
>> AI: 3
>> 
>> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:
>> 
>> {
>> 
>> (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
>> actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):
>> 
>>   1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
>>  than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
>>  N = 1);
>> 
>>   2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
>>  Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
>> 
>>   3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
>>  with a minimum of 1;
>> 
>>   4. With Notice; or
>> 
>>   5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>> 
>> (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
>> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
>> section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
>> all of the following are true:
>> 
>>   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>   perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
>> 
>>   2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
>>   the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
>>   the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
>>   Agoran Consent, or With Notice;
>> 
>>   3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
>>   the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
>>   if the action is to be performed With T Notice;
>> 
>>   4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
>>   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
>>   (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
>>   obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
>>   and method(s) to be used (including the value of
>>   N and/or T for each method);
>> 
>>   5. At least one of the following is true:
>> 
>> A. The performer is the initiator;
>> 
>> B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
>>due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
>>performer; or
>> 
>> C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
>>the action depends on support, the performer has
>>supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
>>performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
>>performing it,
>> 
>>6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
>> by other rules; and
>> 
>>7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
>>the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
>>applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
>>(b)(3).
>> 
>> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
>> depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
>> objections.
>> 
>> }
>> 



Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number 
of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I 
don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with 
the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I 
suspect this proposal breaks that.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:


Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

   1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
  than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
  N = 1);

   2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
  Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

   3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
  with a minimum of 1;

   4. With Notice; or

   5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
   perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

   2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
   the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
   Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

   3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
   if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

   4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
   (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
   obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
   and method(s) to be used (including the value of
   N and/or T for each method);

   5. At least one of the following is true:

 A. The performer is the initiator;

 B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer; or

 C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
the action depends on support, the performer has
supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
performing it,

6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
 by other rules; and

7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.

}



Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Gaelan Steele
Ooh, I wonder if it would be useful to have a “referendum” mechanism for 
non-binding* decisions. Maybe it’s overkill.

Gaelan

* Theresa Cannot’s opinion nonwithstanding

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m 
>> required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.
> 
> No worries from me!  I think participation in someone else's fix
> proposal counts.
> 
> I'm thinking the best way to promote discussion about the winners is a
> (non-binding and informal) ranked choice Agoran decision - I'd list
> out the entries and summarize them (i.e. my opinion on the plusses and
> minuses of each) to start out the voting, without being too precise
> about "points"  (does that sound like a good process?)



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m 
> required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it.

No worries from me!  I think participation in someone else's fix
proposal counts.

I'm thinking the best way to promote discussion about the winners is a
(non-binding and informal) ranked choice Agoran decision - I'd list
out the entries and summarize them (i.e. my opinion on the plusses and
minuses of each) to start out the voting, without being too precise
about "points"  (does that sound like a good process?)


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread D Margaux



On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:38 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>>> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>>  perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
>> 
>> Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such. 
> 
> That would definitely work. Leaving it this way makes it more extensible if 
> other methods are devised in the future, but that seems unlikely and more 
> requirements would be added anyway.

Actually, Gaelan’s comment makes me think there’s an even cleaner way to put 
it, by combining (b)(1) to (b)(4) as follows:

(b) [the intent works if all of this is satisfied:]

   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent
   that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
   obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
   and the method(s) to be used (including the value of
   N and/or T for each method);

2. The announcement referenced in (b)(1) was made:
   
   A. within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to
   be performed With N Support;

B. between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
 the action is to be performed Without N Objections, 
 With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; or,

  C.  between T and 14 days preceding the action,
if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

...

#. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
the announcement of intent referenced in (b)(1).


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
>  Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m required to 
> propose a patch, but someone beat me to it. 
> 
> 

Sorry! This wasn’t meant to interfere with that. I’ve been annoyed by the 
formatting of this rule for a while, and this seemed like a good opportunity to 
fix. 

I think the contest requirement should be deemed met if you adopt this fix as 
your proposal (or propose another one if you don’t like it).

> 
>> 
>>   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>>   perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;
> 
> Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such. 

That would definitely work. Leaving it this way makes it more extensible if 
other methods are devised in the future, but that seems unlikely and more 
requirements would be added anyway. 

> 
>> 
>>
>> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
>> depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
>> objections.
> 
> Do we even want to keep this? Nobody does it. 

Yeah—this seems to be routinely ignored. And probably unnecessary for most 
situations, except for Agoran Consent, where it may not be obvious whether the 
required ratio is met. 

What would people think about limiting this to Agoran Consent, or dispensing 
with it altogether?

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Gaelan Steele
Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m 
required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 8, 2019, at 9:45 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
> identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
> under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
> player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
> arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
> 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
> first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
> is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
> improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
> slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
> parse.
> 
> Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
> want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
> read.
> 
> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> Author: D Margaux
> Co-author: Gaelan
> AI: 3
> 
> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:
> 
> {
> 
> (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
> actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):
> 
>1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
>   than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
>   N = 1);
> 
>2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
>   Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
> 
>3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
>   with a minimum of 1;
> 
>4. With Notice; or
> 
>5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
> 
> (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
> section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
> all of the following are true:
> 
>1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
>perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such. 

> 
>2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
>the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
>the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
>Agoran Consent, or With Notice;
> 
>3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
>the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
>if the action is to be performed With T Notice;
> 
>4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
>applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
>(b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
>obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
>and method(s) to be used (including the value of
>N and/or T for each method);

One could argue that this doesn’t require the announcement itself to be 
conspicuous. So you could bury the announcement as long as once someone finds 
the announcement the intended action is very clear. 

> 
>5. At least one of the following is true:
> 
>  A. The performer is the initiator;
> 
>  B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
> due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
> performer; or
> 
>  C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
> the action depends on support, the performer has
> supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
> performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
> performing it,
> 
> 6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
>  by other rules; and
> 
> 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
> the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
> applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
> (b)(3).
> 
> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
> depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
> objections.

Do we even want to keep this? Nobody does it. 

> 
> }

Gaelan


DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread D. Margaux
Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
   than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
   N = 1);

2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
   Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
   with a minimum of 1;

4. With Notice; or

5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
and method(s) to be used (including the value of
N and/or T for each method);

5. At least one of the following is true:

  A. The performer is the initiator;

  B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
 due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
 performer; or

  C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
 the action depends on support, the performer has
 supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
 performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
 performing it,

 6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
  by other rules; and

 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
 the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
 applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
 (b)(3).

 (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
 depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
 objections.

}