> On Jun 10, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-06-10 at 04:04 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Separately, we’ve still not reverted the requirement that a payment >> to pend a proposal happen Without 3 Objections that was put in as a >> scam stopper. This is a huge brake on proposals, and therefore on >> legislative play, and if we’re sure we fixed the scam, then it’s >> probably time for that measure to go. I’ll even write the proposal to >> remove it, if that’s what it takes. > > We have, by proposal. (The proposal didn't mention the old text by > name, which is why you may have missed it.) I'm not sure if the > Rulekeepor has processed the proposal in question yet, but the rule not > having been reported doesn't prevent it having changed.
Ah, that would do it. My apologies! I also see Aris’ proposal. I believe that that’s my fault - Aris, if I wasted any of your time, I’m sorry, can I make it up to you? -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
