On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, comex wrote: > On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> And it's up to 28 days depending on when it's submitted in relation >> to the beginning of the week, so time is cutting between 1/3 and 1/2. >> It serves two purposes: it's still a long time between bugs turning >> up and us waiting for them to be fixed, even a 1/3 benefit helps. >> And if it's racing against a bad proposal, even an edge of a day >> helps. > > Perhaps, but I liked it better when Zefram was promotor. No distributability > + > biweekly distributions = the time between proposal and adoption was more like > 2 > weeks for all proposals. This was a Good Thing-- wait too long before > distribution and people totally forget the pros and cons raised at submission > time, and waiting for adoption slows the game down. When we had a deluge of > proposals, it was probably beneficial to tap the brakes-- but now we have too > few proposals and it's time to let go. Ditch Distributability and the > requirement not to distribute proposals submitted in the same week, and the > officers can do the rest on their own (without having to reduce the voting > period).
It's fine to ditch Distributionality in slow periods. If we're worried about a deluge of poorly-thought proposals, a limit of proposals you can make distributable in a week is plenty of medicine (So: not ditch but limit). IMO the main reason to keep it at it is now is if you want a functioning trading economy --- there's just not much to naturally buy and sell so it's a vital sector. If we're over that, too, ditch it. -G.
