This one's a really good idea in principle: last time we tried it, someone
who believed in free proposals whipped up a "anyone can act on my behalf
to support creating/pending a proposal" contract. Not sure if it's worth
making exceptions to act-on-behalf for such things or if that becomes too
clumsy?
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the proposal
> against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere]
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted
> > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning.
> >
> > Aside: I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in
> > the pool without review (including mine). Watching the proposals in the
> > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in
> > that process. YMMV.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran
> >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before
> >> your time cold have committed.
> >>
> >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey" <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies
> >> Adoption index: 2.0
> >> Author: twg
> >> Co-authors:
> >>
> >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to
> >> "For each office that has official duties".
> >>
> >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>
> >>
> >> -twg
> >>
> >
>
>
