I agree. However, distribution is _really_ hard to accelerate well. Other than the fact that ID numbers become a pain to deal with, there's also the fact that small distributions don't tend to meet quorum. I don't see any barrier to making it easier to assess proposals though. Does someone who's held Assessor have an opinion on that?
-Aris On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:32 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > Especially when pending is free, I think we have a lot of buggy > proposals go into the pool, and the proofreading really doesn't > happen until a quorum-enforced group put on their voting hats > and look closely before voting. I think the formality of that > process is useful. > > *However* I don't think it's so much the straight voting-process > delay as the 1+week at each end waiting for promotor/assessor (not > a dig at the current promotor/assessor, this is true regardless of > officeholder). Maybe if there's a way to speed up either end? > > On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > I’m considering proposing a rule that would enable proposals to be ADOPTED > > through dependent actions. The idea is that a player could announce intent > > to ADOPT a proposal with X support, where X is the number of players who by > > voting FOR could cause the proposal to be ADOPTED if all active > > non-supporting players vote AGAINST and all zombies vote PRESENT. Seems > > like it could result in potentially quicker adoption of uncontroversial > > proposals. > > > > I’m curious whether people think this is a good or bad idea
