I vote as follows: > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee (sh.) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7958* Aris, [1] 3.0 Assets v7 Aris 6
FOR. Aris, your commitment to making this happen is commendable. I think this revision still has some weak spots, but they’re survivable and I’d much rather work on them in light of practice than send this around again in the hopes of getting it completely perfect before we actually try it out. > 7859* Quazie, grok 1.7 Gentle Judicial Updates Quazie 6 FOR. Really nice work, both of you. > 7860* Quazie 1.7 Cards are power 1.7 Quazie 6 FOR. I have this faint suspicion this is part of a scam, but I can’t see it. In any case, per recent CFJs, this is a necessary fix, and if it’s part of a scam I trust Quazie to make it an amusing one. > 7861* Quazie, [2] 3.0 Trivia(l) Quazie 6 AGAINST. Insufficient specificity as to what qualifies as “trivial.” This effectively guts the Shiny economy - which we can do, but I’d prefer we did it through a proposal intended to do so. I like the idea, though, and this is a nice alternative to batching up trivial changes into omnibus proposals to make the pend fee “worthwhile." > 7862* Quazie, [3] 1.7 Betterer Pledges Quazie 6 AGAINST. I like the idea, but the execution feels incomplete. > 7863* Quazie 1.2 Why should outsiders...[4] Quazie 6 FOR. I’m looking forward to CuddleBeam setting up an unamendable organization. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
