ais523 wrote: > Well, I think the democratisation didn't work for slightly different > reasons; woggle intended to make a non-existent (at the time) Agoran > decision democratic. As it happens, a proposal was assigned the number > 5707, and there was an Agoran decision about it; but a different > proposal (there were 7 in the pool at the time IIRC) could have been > assigned that number, or the number might not have been used due to a > Promotor mistake, for instance. So I don't think that the intent was > unambiguous, and unambiguity is needed for an intent to work.
woggle stated eir intent in response to the Monster's alleged deputy distribution of 5707, which was only later determined to have been invalid because the Promotor wasn't required to distribute it until the following week. That's unambiguous enough in my book, especially since that same proposal did get ID number 5707 when the PNP distributed it. I'm curious, I looked up this context in the archives and you made this comment: > I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Promotor to assign > this proposal the ID number 5707 (believing a lower number would be > confusing, as the PerlNomic Partnership has already reserved all lower > numbers for proposals it's tried and failed to distribute). but I don't remember the PNP publishing any invalid attempts to distribute (except for an early test run, and one of my proposals where someone entered the wrong AI). Were you referring to someone activating a "publish what's in the pool" script containing some "not until more time passes and/or more proposals are added" logic, or what?
