Yes, but I prefer requiring second-party support as opposed to lack of second, third, and fourth party opposition. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:07 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > On May 7, 2017, at 4:21 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> It strikes me that a mandatory delay on pending might not necessarily >> be a bad thing long-term; it'd mean that we could actually submit >> proto-proposals to get more discussion, without the risk of a well- >> meaning person pending them before they were fully debugged, and the >> without-3-objections neatly mirrors the old Support Democracy rule. So >> I think this proposal has potential merits as a gameplay aid, in >> addition to as a scam fix. However, it's best to take things one at a >> time; get the scam fixed first, then work out the gameplay we want >> aftewards. > > > I think, once we’re bored of Shinies, this has a lot of potential. The > existence of “proto” proposals is an interesting artifact, and suggests that > the submit/pend/vote cycle isn’t fostering discussion as much as it could be. > Requiring a second party to pend proposals might be an interesting change. > > -o >
