We've had success historically with Urgent proposals
A player CAN flip a proposal
to Urgent by paying a fee that is split between the Promotor and
Assessor. Promotor must distribute the proposal in 4 days. Assessor
must assess within 4 days of end of voting period. If not done before
deadline, anyone can temporarily deputise to do it (a category of
deputisation that used to exist, that meant you didn't take the office
when you do the task).
Fee enough of a barrier that you get a couple a month at most maybe.
Risks of quorum etc. assumed by the purchaser.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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
>
