On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 9:41 PM Aris Merchant < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 9:31 PM omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 11:31 PM Aris Merchant > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 8265 twg, [3] 3.0 [4] > > > > FOR. > > > > Proposal: Where's my clarity requirement? (AI=3) > > { > > Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing: > > > > This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following > > information, and the lack is correctly identified within one > > week after the notice is published: > > > > with: > > > > This notice is invalid if it lacks a clear specification of any > > of the following information, and the lack is correctly > > identified within one week after the notice is published: > > } > > > > > I’m not convinced that this is unclear. It’s obfuscated and hidden, but > hiding something and obfuscating it doesn’t make it unclear. Also, I’d like > to point out that this is a one off situation and is highly unlikely to > ever come up again. That said, if you actually want your change to be > helpful, a better standard might be “unobfuscated” or perhaps “clear and > unobfuscated”. > > -Aris > Oh, also, well you’re at it, could you change “correctly identified” to “correctly and publicly identified” so that no one, like, hides the fact that they’ve identified it and then still claims they’ve invalidated the decision? -Aris
