On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:54 PM ais523 via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 17:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 5:04 PM ais523 via agora-business
> > wrote:
> > > It's also worth noting that G. explicitly stated in eir message that e
> >
On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 8:53 AM ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> > 9001~ snail 2.0 More Bright Abilities
> On this decision, I vote with a conditional vote: FOR if proposal 9000
> was adopted, otherwise AGAINST.
I don't think this conditional works as written - ADOPTED is
de
Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-06-05 15:28]:
> On 6/5/23 13:58, juan via agora-business wrote:
> > 8998: AGAINST. Quite literally impossible to determine. Also, stamp reports
> > ratify
>
> ais523 got it right:
>
> >> 8998* Janet 3.0 Stamp fungibility correction
> > FO
On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-business [2023-06-05 15:28]:
>> On 6/5/23 13:58, juan via agora-business wrote:
>>> 8998: AGAINST. Quite literally impossible to determine. Also, stamp reports
>>> ratify
>> ais523 got it right:
>>
8998* Janet
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]:
> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
> > would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes stored on
> > the server changed the CPU heat emission jus
On 6/5/23 16:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]:
>> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
>>> would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes store
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 17:07]:
> Which specific stamp report? This makes it so that all stamp reports
> would have ratified correctly, so every week there was a well-known
> point, as intended. Picking one to ratify either doesn't actually make
> the present gamestate more cert
On 6/5/23 16:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 16:48]:
>> On 6/5/23 16:45, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> No, it's not. It's a blanket assertion that “everything” is as it
>>> would have been. We don't know that. Maybe the different bytes store
On 6/5/23 18:38, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-05 17:07]:
>> Which specific stamp report? This makes it so that all stamp reports
>> would have ratified correctly, so every week there was a well-known
>> point, as intended. Picking one to ratify either
I feel this needs clarification then. It should be explicit. Or else, is there
a CFJ with specific tests for what changes?
On June 5, 2023 7:45:36 PM GMT-03:00, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>On 6/5/23 16:57, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-
10 matches
Mail list logo
