I’m not so sure it self-ratified, actually.
1551/21 reads, in part: {
An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however, if
such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where
the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main
section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification of the
document proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
}
1607/47 reads, in part: {
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool,
along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public document
purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.
}
The Promotor’s message listed the attributes twice, and the text once, of each
proposal. So this depends on what “this portion” means: does it mean the list
at the top as well as the full proposals below, or just the full proposals
below?
If it means just the full proposals, then the proposal ratified at AI 1.
If it means both, then we’ve got an internally inconsistent document, according
to the 1551 clause I quoted. The question, then, is whether or not the
"document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the
only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main
section.” The key bit here is “only purpose”—the list at the top is actually
part of another action (“I hereby distribute each listed proposal…”), but that
action isn’t part of the self-ratifying document, so maybe in this context it
only serves on purpose?
If the “summary” clause applies, then it ratified at AI 1.
If not, the document is internally inconsistent and didn’t ratify at all.
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:30, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade)
>>> FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg&
>>> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o
>>> PRESENT (0):
>>> BALLOTS: 11
>>> AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0)
>>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a bunch
>> of power=2 rules. In the distribution message, it is listed as AI-2 in
>> the top part:
>>> 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
>>
>> and AI-1 in the bottom part:
>>
>>> ID: 8317
>>> Title: Zombie trade
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I doubt
>> the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a "new
>> power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong?
>
> The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error
> within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of
> clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly
> distributed at AI=2 now.
>
> -Alexis
