On 8/1/2019 6:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/1/19 8:53 PM, James Cook wrote:
>> Would it make the Promotor's job easier if the Rules were changed to
>> not require distributing everything at once?
>
>
> In my understanding, the Rules don't require this now.
>
> Rule 1607 reads, in part:
>
>>
On 8/1/19 8:53 PM, James Cook wrote:
Would it make the Promotor's job easier if the Rules were changed to
not require distributing everything at once?
In my understanding, the Rules don't require this now.
Rule 1607 reads, in part:
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 23:00, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > On 7/30/19 9:51 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > >> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> > >> in any
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/30/19 9:51 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
> >> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> >> in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per
On 7/30/19 9:51 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per week
(5 to 10 per day, say)? (No, I'm not bidding for the office
> - Enforce this norm by lowering people's honor for not following it (I
> just generally like the idea of using honor to reinforce norms since it
> doesn't do much else)
I like this idea.
--
- Falsifian
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy wrote:
> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per week
> (5 to 10 per day, say)? (No, I'm not bidding for the office myself.)
As a voter, I would be
On 7/28/19 4:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Incidentally, it’s pretty unlikely that I could persuade y’all to approve
this, but my life would be way simpler if proposals could only be submitted
in messages that had “proposal” in the subject line. Currently, I have to
read through every public
On 7/28/19 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 7/28/2019 2:49 PM, Aris
Merchant wrote:
> Incidentally, it’s pretty unlikely that I could persuade y’all to approve
> this, but my life would be way simpler if proposals could only be submitted
> in messages that had “proposal” in the subject line.
On 7/29/19 10:41 PM, James Cook wrote:
* It be dangerous, e.g. make backup lists less effective if things go
wrong. R1698 might calim that the agora-proposal changing into a
broken list never happened because it would have caused Agora to
become ossified, but that wouldn't fix the problem that
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:45, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> > [This is one of the most complicated distributions in my time in office.
> > There will be errors; CoE and I'll try to correct. I've been working at this
> > for well over 4
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be
> > interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've
> > never
> > done before).
>
>
> Rule 2463 ("Motion of No
Actually, minimum possible change would make that fine. Sorry about that.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 1:21 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Doing a similar ratification is probably fine, but for that text
> specifically, it might nuke everything that has happened in the game
> since then.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On
Doing a similar ratification is probably fine, but for that text
specifically, it might nuke everything that has happened in the game
since then.
Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 6:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
If it's proving complicated to work out which proposals were actually
distributed, would
On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be
interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've
never
done before).
Rule 2463 ("Motion of No Confidence") requires a subject line that
includes "MOTION OF NO
On 7/28/2019 2:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> What would be most helpful would be a flat deadline where I wouldn’t be
> obliged to deal with anything after that time.
Actually I was just contemplating bringing back Pending with the simple
method "all proposals in the Proposal Pool become
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 2:38 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On 7/28/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > 8226: summary has "Contractual Delimitation" by Aris, text has
> "Cancelling
> > Proposals" by twg.
> >
> > There is no "Contractual Delimitation" in the text section, and
> "Cancelling
> >
On 7/28/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
8226: summary has "Contractual Delimitation" by Aris, text has "Cancelling
Proposals" by twg.
There is no "Contractual Delimitation" in the text section, and "Cancelling
Proposals" does not appear in the summary section.
This is a CoE.
You know,
18 matches
Mail list logo
