On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of >> trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset >> ratification >> was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else but let the rules be >> corrected when need be). -Goethe > > Well, the problem is that a long-standing rules problem may break the > rest of ratification. (For instance, if the rules don't say what we > think they do, the ratification rules may be completely broken.) That > way, we could end up with a really large massive gamestate recalculation > unless the rules are ratified, preferably without dependencies on > anything but the proposal rules.
I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g. proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular. Unlike those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B? Or at least my impression of B) I don't mind some (reasonably-limited) reconstruction work, those are at least interesting debates as far as process goes. I think a good compromise is ~annually, at a time when there's less controversy; the last one was Sept 08 and (as you say) right now we're in a relatively confused period. So, not now. -Goethe
