On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ACCEPTED: Though I still have some doubts about your formatting, as it's not
> 100% certain that your e-mails are 'Purporting to be a Promotor's report' as
> the rules indicate they should, especially when the e-mails seemed to be
> predominantly Distributions on first glance.. I don't wanna inject a CFJ
> into my life, but i request you note that the message are indeed Promotor
> Reports to eliminate ambiguity in the future. I'll update this soon.
>
>
> {{{
>
> The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
> Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This
> portion of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's
> report is self-ratifying.
>
> }}}
>
> My question is, if the document doesn't purport to be a Promotor's report,
> is it still the Promotor's report, and is it still self-ratifying?
I think it does purport to be a Promotor's report, as a matter of game
custom. This has been the way promotor's reports have been done since
at least some time in 2014, and probably before that. I think this has
been reasonably unambiguous to everyone before now. I'd like to avoid
unnecessary changes. I've made only two formatting changes to these
reports since I entered office. The first was to add "and removing it
from the proposal pool" to the header boilerplate, and the second was
to add the pender and pend fee data. I'll CFJ this if necessary, but
I'd like to avoid it if we can reach a consensus. What do other's
think?
-Aris
