I realize this is a bit late, since the proposal in question has been distributed, but:
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 4:10 PM Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I retract the proposal "Improved Buoyancy". I submit the following proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Improved Buoyancy v2
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G.
>
> [Note to the Assessor: please resolve after "Float On".]
>
> [It is my belief that the current floating value problem was primarily caused
> by the Secretary only being able to set the floating value correctly. This
> erases certainty, as any flaw in the Secretary's report likely invalidates all
> rule-defined transactions until the flaw is discovered unless the switch
> self-ratifies. The probability of deliberate abuse by the secretary is small,
> the probability of error is large.]
>
> If the proposal "Float On" been adopted: {
> Amend Rule 2497, "Floating Value", by changing its first paragraph to read:
>
> Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary.
>
> Amend Rule 2456, "The Secretary", by changing the paragraph "As part of the
> Secretary's weekly duties, e CAN and SHALL flip the Floating Value to the
> number of Shinies owned by Agora. E SHOULD do this while publishing eir
> weekly report." to read as follows:
>
> The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week by announcement. As
> part
> of eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of
> Shinies
> owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a different value.
> E SHOULD do this while publishing eir weekly report. If the Secretary
> discovers that e last flipped the floating value to an incorrect value and e
> would not otherwise be able to set it again yet, e CAN and SHALL set the
> value
> to what it should have been set to in the first place by announcement.
Seems reasonable, as that’s what I had been doing anyways. I note your
construction, here: if I publish a mistaken value, it works, but it’s cardable,
even after it’s corrected. I think that’s fine; most minor errors should draw a
Green Card, but this leaves the door open for anything up to a Pink Slip if
it’s clearly in bad faith.
I have some concerns about codifying what an Officer “discovers” as a
rules-relevant event, though. It might be worth revising this to fit within the
CoE framework, or something like it. Do we have prior art, here?
> } Otherwise, if the proposal "Float On" has been resolved, but not adopted: {
> Amend Rule 2497, "Floating Value", by changing it to read in full:
>
> Floating Value is a natural singleton switch, tracked by the Secretary.
>
> The Secretary CAN flip the floating value once a week by announcement. As
> part
> of eir weekly duties, e SHALL flip the Floating Value to the number of
> Shinies
> owned by Agora; e SHALL NOT ever set it to a different value. E SHOULD do
> this while publishing eir weekly report. If the Secretary discovers that e
> last flipped the floating value to an incorrect value and e would not
> otherwise be able to set it again yet, e CAN and SHALL set the value to what
> it should have been set to in the first place by announcement.
>
> } Otherwise: {
> Glare pointedly at the Assessor.
> std::abort();
> }
LINT: I believe the final case to be unreachable.
With a grin,
-o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
