> On Jul 20, 2017, at 11:02 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scr >>> ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I pend this for the minimum allowable amount. >> >> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by >> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid >> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a >> CFJ. > > Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can > flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort > of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point. > > Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only > way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal" > is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes.
We’ve behaved as if it’s possible to pay someone zero shinies, at least. That involves switch manipulation, though I don’t think we’ve ever CFJed that specific set of actions down to the detail needed to determine whether the Balance switches involved are actually flipped. However, you’ve got a point. I should probably record this as a 5-shiny pend, since that’s trivially the minimum allowable amount unless someone has a perverse interpretation of “allowable” in mind. (fx: stares at Quazie) -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
