On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 12:32 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > On 10/26/2019 11:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > 8265 twg, [3] 3.0 [4] > > I vote AGAINST 8265, and act on behalf of Rance to vote AGAINST. > > First, the text was not included with the distribution. While it has been > previously published in a way that *probably* satisfies the notice period, > I > do not feel comfortable voting for it in this manner where it is > distributed > without its text. > > Second, the fact that there is neither a descriptive title (to go looking > for its text) nor a proposal text makes me wonder if it passes any of the > tests of clearly indicating the matter being voted on. Would a player who > hadn't been following along with proposal drafts have any reasonable idea > how to find the proposal text, or know what's being referenced at all? > > Third, from my memory of the text (I'm not inclined to go searching), I'm > sorry, it was fun and cute at power-1, but when you get to the point when > you need so many exceptions and power-3 to make it work, I'm not > comfortable > with it. >
It’s in there, it’s just deliberately obfuscated (specifically, it’s in the middle of the list and the ID is obfuscated by having underscores between each number). I was wondering if someone was going to object to that, but I implemented those changes during the draft stage and I figured someone would have objected then if it were considered problematic. -Aris > > >
