This fails, as do Aris' and ATMunn's attempts to change their votes, because
the voting periods for these proposals ended at 10:35pm.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 10:39 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > 8133 Trigon 1.0 Proposals aren't worth that much
> FOR
>
>
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Wait, how should I vote? I saw some conditional weirdness, but didn’t read
> through it.
8138 is missing a critical "by announcement" therefore broken (if it
passes, it just keeps the status quo because the new functionality is
all that's broken there
Wait, how should I vote? I saw some conditional weirdness, but didn’t read
through it.
-Aris
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:45 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Oh dear, someone's not been paying attention. :P
>
> Just to make sure it doesn't actually pass, I change my vote on Proposal
> 8138 to AGAINST,
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
> > permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
>
> Still doesn't fix your worry about secrecy, thoug
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
Still doesn't fix your worry about secrecy, though.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-G
Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work. I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
>
> A party to a contract CAN perform any of the f
Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:
A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
as permitted by the contract's text:
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
* By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
contract's possession.
* By an
No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
(which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
behalf
Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit
only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> > On Su
CoV on 8138: AGAINST
Gaelan
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
>
> I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets
No vote for now. I see an issue with this that I have to think about
(i.e. read the rules a few times to see if it's actually an issue).
There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.
11 matches
Mail list logo
