>> With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen: >> >> 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value >> rules need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that >> would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get >> those fixed, too. > > The proposals for this are distributed, other than one late-breaking bugfix > for Agoraculture. As Agoraculture has only just been enacted > > PLEASE DO NOT PERFORM ACTIONS FROM THE AGORACULTURE RULES UNTIL THE MAY/CAN > BUGS IN THEM ARE FIXED. > > Let’s not have a repeat quite that quickly. To the Agronomist: I recommend > adjudicating these rules, and these rules only, as if they mean exactly what > they say, which I believe means that it is presently impossible to create > Comestibles.
I’m reasonably certain that the proposals fixing Shinies have passed, but have not yet been assessed. The proposal repairing Agoraculture has been distributed and the votes so far are FOR it, so - optimistically - I expect it to pass, as well. We’re fairly close to having these two systems working again. With that in mind… >> 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all >> shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel >> attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all >> clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is >> submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not to >> do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration. > > Having slept on this a bit, and understanding the ratification process a bit > better, I think this proposal will comprise two parts: > > 1. A condition that matches only the prior actions that would fall under > principle 1 and ratifies them in place with the rules retroactively changed, > and > > 2. A list of all such actions known at the time of writing for the proposal, > by reference (through links into the archives). > > The latter acts as a fallback in case the former is inadequate in some way, > while the former allows players to continue transacting nominal shinies > without losing those transactions when ratification happens. > > Does this seem reasonable? I spoke to ais523 privately, and to a few other folks, and it sounds like ratifying the Secretary’s report (which happens automatically) and turning a benign blind eye to the fact that the Promotor may have been distributing proposals which were not pending (which the Promotor CAN do, but MUST NOT do) should be sufficient. We may want to ratify the ruleset, as well, once we’re sure the typographical issues and accidental omissions people have been discovering are sorted out, but I don’t think it’s urgent so long as the proposal cycle itself isn’t compromised, and it doesn’t sound like it is. With that in mind, I believe no further action is required on this front once the proposals mentioned above are enacted. Objections? -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
