On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 09:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> AGAINST. This should allow Private contracts to do so as well (if >> the contract detail is published when the act is performed). >> Otherwise, we'd just make zoop around it with some weirdness like "in >> this private contract, the contractees CAN make a public contract an >> instant before acting on behalf of, to which the contractees pre- >> agree to agree to..." > > I have at least one private contract with a trigger that does exactly > that. I think in this case, needing such a trigger is a good thing, so > that everyone knows the details of the actions that are being taken; why > require simultaneous publication in more than one rule, when we have a > rule that deals with publicising of contracts already?
Er, my point is, doesn't the proposal outlaw that kind of thing, and say that the full contract that contains the trigger has to be public? -G.
