On 10/27/2019 12:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
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.
I jumped to the end because I was concerned about this proposal in the first
place, I wasn't sure if I was going to go PRESENT or AGAINST (for the third
reason I gave). I think the deliberate obfuscation has made up my mind here
to stick with AGAINST. Sorry.
