On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well we have a mechanism that is basically the same as > > self-ratification (in principle) in R107 with the "lack identified > > within one week" clause. We could update this language to make use of > > self-ratification but it doesn't really change the issue of what > > missing/wrong sub-parts should invalidate the decision. > What I was going for was allowing fixing a distribution; my > understanding of the current distribution rules is that they don't give > force to revisions, while self-ratification does. > > > The author doesn't > > affect the proposal's operation so isn't a substantive aspect 99% of > > the time, but it absolutely has an effect when I come to think of how > > to vote. > > Hmm... I wasn't thinking about this. I don't really care who the author > of a proposal is, just what the text is. I guess I don't know who to > trust or not.
I should clarify: when a weirdly-scammy proposal comes up (like the one I did recently) then sure, the author matters for "trust". More often, there's so many conversations going on that author is the best keyword/memory jog for me - e.g. I see a proposal that says "random fixes III" and I only know the context on what needs fixing because I remember that [author] had been leading a discussion on it recently and I saw several drafts go by so I know it had some review/editing (without that memory jog I'm more prone to shrug and vote Present). -G.
