Ian Kelly wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here.
CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one
you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement".
Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point
of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of
Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way
for the rule to supply a mechanism for actions that need one but
require the same mechanism for actions that don't?
-root
I was just thinking about this one. One way to do this may be to introduce
"Permissions". They could be probably be an Asset that would destroy itself
after 14 days.
Then have a rule where Permissions can be created with Agoran Consent.
That way the dependant action is the granting of the permission and is performed
upon resolution of the decision. The owner of a permission can perform the
action that the permission allows, or it expires after 14 days.
I'd have to read through the asset stuff before protoing this and I'm not sure
how to define that a permission only relates to one particular action.
Levi
