On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 >>> >>> Amend R208 by replacing: >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there >>> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' >>> valid ballots. >>> with: >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there >>> was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate >>> tally of the voters' valid ballots. >>> >>> [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be >>> CoEd >>> and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one >>> with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. >> >> No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, >> but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct >> tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the >> self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to >> rewrite some of this. > > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > this version would introduce about what the outcome was.
Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"?
