On 4/25/2020 11:51 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 11:11 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 01:43, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >>> [I'm attempting to replicate, as nearly as possible, the 2 Agoran >>> Consent requirement for awarding the patent title. Unless there is an >>> objection, the Promotorial Proposal Office intends to exercise its >>> discretion not to assign this proposal to a chamber.] >>> >>> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make the below proposal Democratic. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >> >> Why not just do it with 2 Agoran Consent? > > Rereading the rule, it seems the Arbitor CAN make an intent for > whoever e wants; the restriction on doing it for the judge of the CFJ > is a should. So I guess maybe we should go that route? I'm tired and > can't think ATM, I'll see what people have said in the morning.
Actually, rereading it this morning, could the proposal be a bit less "whereas" ish and a bit more explaining why that particular judgement deserves it enough to override twg's failure to deliver it? I'd prefer honest discussion of such awards (as is more prone to happen when seeking Agoran consent) over acclamation for its own sake. -G.
