While I don't like it, if done, I suggest adding a shiny payment for doing
Linting. Makes it easier to find supporter for doing the task and I feel
like a chore like that should be rewarded anyways.
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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...
> > >
> > >
> >
>
