On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I vote as follows, and act on behalf of o to vote as follows: > > > 8288 omd 1.0 Glitteral > Endorse the Treasuror. This takes away the requirement to specify the > reward amount explicitly in the announcement. Is it too much of a > burden on the Treasuror to keep abreast of the ribbons and do the > calculations? > > > 8296 Aris, G. 1.0 Divergence > FOR > > > 8297 Aris 2.1 Imminent Failure > FOR > > > 8298 Aris, [2] 2.0 Administrative Adjudication v3 > AGAINST. Two concerns here. (1) I have no idea what "tracked along > with judicial cases" means in terms of practical tracking, and don't > think it should be the Arbitor's job (if that's what's meant), and (2) > officer discretion should mean that there's some means for a current > officer to overrule a past officer (whatever you call reverse > precedent where the new takes the place of the old).
If it's going to set a judicial precedent, why shouldn't the Arbitor track it? Though you're Arbitor, so I'll defer to you on that; keep in mind that it's a SHOULD. I don't think problem 2 is actually a problem; the new officer can simply issue a new memorandum, if the matter continues to be a concern. > > 8299 Aris, G. 3.0 The Reset Button v2 > AGAINST (as discussed) > > > 8300 Aris 3.0 Patches > AGAINST. I just noticed that it's not at all clear that the identify > of the "promulgator" moves with the office. It's also not clear that > "an officer" has to be the officer who issues the memorandum, the way > it reads, once a particular officer issues a memorandum within eir > domain, then *any* officer can do the regulation provided it is > pursuant to the memorandum. Agreed with you on the first concern, though I'm not sure that's actually a huge problem, given the obsolescence provision. I'll submit a proposal to clarify it and/or handle it when this fails. The second one, while I agree that should be clarified, is unlikely to pose a significant problem. I doubt an officer would try to get around it, and if they did, it would be blocked by objections. > > 8301 Aris, Jason Cobb 3.0 Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping > > v2 > AGAINST. As above, "tracked as part of eir weekly or monthly report > in a fashion similar to rules" is confusing, what does "fashion > similar" mean, Also this implies it's part of the SLR (weekly?) The > point of the SLR is it doesn't include this information. Fashion similar means that the Rulekeepor can do basically whatever e wants as long as it's vaguely analogous. I don't particularly object to fixing that, though I also don't think it's a big problem to leave the details up to the Rulekeepor's discretion. I very strongly disagree with you on the SLR thing. The point of regulations is that they're quasi-rules. The SLR is supposed to show how the rules function, leaving out extra information like historical and judicial annotations. Regulations are definitely part of the functioning of the rules, not the extra information. -Aris
