Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the ability to easily clean up some mess.
Gaelan > On Nov 27, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Jacob Arduino <jacobardu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Good catch > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the > remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical > order > AGAINST otherwise > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> > Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 04:42 > Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > To: <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> > > >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: >> >> 8135 twg, D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay (Reprise) >> ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved >> AGAINST otherwise > >> 8137 Aris, twg, Trigon 3.0 Uncorrecting Rewards >> ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved >> AGAINST otherwise > >> 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets >> ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved >> AGAINST otherwise > > While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal > advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work, > because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not > when the proposals are later resolved. > > Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain > personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch." > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
