Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should
cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't
even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when
applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly
left in the ruleset is cleaned, the entire text of that rule is then
ratified? There's a definite Rulekeepor scam in self-ratifying
cleanings, and trying to mitigate this scammability will be difficult.
On 2/18/19 10:34 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
results self-ratify.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the
future.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
--
Trigon
