I'm cool with ratifying floating value, but isn't that the Registrar's Report not the Secretary's report? The documents you list in the ratification attempt place the floating value setting action outside the "Report" body. So it's not clear in that attempt that you're ratifying the action of setting the floating value...?
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > My plan is to fix the urgent crisis of not knowing what out gamestate > is/not having it agree with our preconceptions, and then patch the > hole, preferably ratifying the fact the gamestate to be as if the > problem had never existed. To be honest, my first concern is fixing > the floating value, it's just that it's pretty hard to do that by > ratification without also ratifying the stamp purchases. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > I transfer to Agora the Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp. > >> > > >> > I know this is very likely impossible, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. > >> > > >> > But if we ratify everything to what would-have-been, I want my cheap > >> > stamp. > >> > >> I'll just note that the currently awaiting Ratification Without Objection > >> won't help you here, since it only affects past holdings and doesn't fix > >> the > >> MAY issue itself. > > > > I wasn't sure whether the plan was "keep playing as if it works until fixed, > > then ratify/proposal as if it was all continuous" or "now that we've found > > the bugs, the earlier people get to keep stamps through ratification and the > > later people don't." The second way doesn't seem quite fair and would be a > > reason to Object to ratifying the past one (though some may have already > > self-ratified, I don't really know at this point). > > > > I mean personally, I'm also cool with a complete reset, but I'm just > > covering > > my options here. > > > > -G. > > > > >
