Support doesn't require a waiting period at all, only objections and
Agoran Consent do.
And is an "intent to pend with 2 support" any different than "please
review this and say you did and someone will track it?" It seems
like re-inventing the same mechanism.
In any case, if you pursue this, the loophole that we found last time
was: people who believe Pending shouldn't be held up create Agencies
to allow the proposer to do it on their behalf. Reading the on-behalf-
of rules, there's nothing to prohibit delegating the review process
to the writer of the proposal.
On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Using Support requires an explicit Intent and a 4 day delay, neither of
> which is necessary for this case. I should have made this more clear, but
> there is intentionally no requirement that the the pender is not one of
> the linters. I’ll add a (correct!) MAY in the next iteration, or just
> change it to the pender and one other. I originally avoided that to
> prevent awkwardness when pending on behalf.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> >>> {{{
> >>> The Lint Screen is a singleton switch, tracked by the
> >>> [Rulekeepor/Promotor]
> >>> with possible values including all lists of text. The items in theIt
> >>> SHOULD
> >>> contain a list of common errors in proposals.
> >>
> >> "theIt"? Maybe add something about silly editing errors ;)
> >>
> >>> Any player may flip The Lint Screen by adding, modifying, or removing an
> >>> item with Consent.
> >>>
> >>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to pend a proposal unless two players have publicly
> >>> stated
> >>> that they have reviewed (“linted”) the proposal for the issues listed in
> >>> the
> >>> Lint Screen. [Note that this has no teeth; if necessary, any proposal can
> >>> still be passed]
> >>> }}}
> >>
> >> For easier maintenance, the pending should require naming and/or quoting
> >> the
> >> reviewers. Otherwise someone would need to track this too.
> >
> > "CAN be pended with 2 Support, with the Supporters stating in their support
> > message that they have..."
> >
> > (In R1728, listing supporters is a SHOULD, albeit a regularly-ignored one).
> >
> > However, past experience points to a big loophole in this, so I'm not sure
> > it's
> > worth it...
> >
> >
>
