I’d vote FOR this version.
-Aris
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:12 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Seems reasonable. What about:
>
> //
> Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act v2
> AI: 3
> Author: D Margaux
> Coauthors: Aris, G
>
> Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
>
> “1. A person (the initiator) announced inten
Seems reasonable. What about:
//
Title: Buried Intent Prevention Act v2
AI: 3
Author: D Margaux
Coauthors: Aris, G
Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
“1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action,
unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including
the val
I would add "unobfuscated" to really bullet-proof it because that
covers any attempt to hide...?
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> What would you think of a requirement that an intent to take a dependent
> action be announced “conspicuously”? Something like:
>
>
>
> //
>
>
> Am
What would you think of a requirement that an intent to take a dependent
action be announced “conspicuously”? Something like:
//
Amend Rule 1728 to replace,
“1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action,
unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s)
I don’t think this is the right way to go about it. It seems like annoying
boilerplate that would be easy to forget. I’d suggest just requiring that
the announcement not be obfuscated.
-Aris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:07 PM D Margaux wrote:
> I submit (but I do not yet pend) this proposal:
>
> T
5 matches
Mail list logo
