On 8/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root wrote: > > > Incidentally, I don't like these new dependent action rules; all the > > Agoran decision cruft makes them much more heavyweight than they > > really have any need to be. When are we ever going to use a dependent > > action with a majority index other than one? > > When we think of something important enough.
I can't think of anything we've ever done in the past that would have merited such a feature, so it seems unlikely that we'll find one in the future. Note that none of the dependent actions you listed even go so far as to mix the various modes; we've had "with X support and without Y objections" actions in the past, but those I think have largely been subsumed by Agoran consent. > > Also, as long as I'm looking at it, "less than or equal to" in > > R955(d)(3) should probably just be "less than", since the vote > > collector implicitly counts as 1 support. > > This should be handled by amending R1729(d) so that the vote > collector is not auto-disqualified in this case. (Consider the > IADoP's duty to attempt to change officers; e should be free to > object to eir own attempt. Unless e is ineligible for other > reasons, e.g. the current IADoP is a partnership.) Good point. I'm not convinced by your IADoP argument (e should attempt to make placements that e's willing to support), but it's a simpler approach overall. -root
