On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:35 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:11, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Here's a draft that separates out contracts from pacts, and creates an > > office of Notary to track contracts and pledges. NOTE: Volunteers are > > needed for Notary! Apply now! > > I really like the idea of tracking pledges and contracts. A few > comments on the proto: > > * To address Jason Cobb's concern about publishing a "this may or may > not be a contract", how about saying something isn't a contract until > all parties have publicly consented to the text and list of parties > within a 4-day window? (The 4-day window is to make it easier to keep > track of whether the condition has been met.) (Is there any similar > issue with amending contracts? It seems to work as written, but I'm > not certain.)
I thought of another solution, which is to require that it be publicly certified. > * Should the Notary's reported list of pledges and contracts be > self-ratifying? If it isn't, we're missing an opportunity to reduce > uncertainty. I'm worried about scams. > * Why is the new Contracts rule power 3.0? The old one (renamed to > Pledges) is only 2.5. Fixed by changing it to 2.5. > * I'm a little worried about "without objection" counting as consent. > I think what bugs me is that "consent" is used in different ways in > the rules. Often it's modified by some adjective, like "willful", > which would probably mean "without objection" doesn't count, but it > still seems messy to use the same word for all these different things. > Not offering a solution, mostly just thinking out loud. I'll remove it. > * CAN the transitional period be ended? Maybe I'm being overly literal > here, but I could imagine someone reading that rule and wondering > whether when it was written, it relied on a separate rule (now > repealed) governing when "transitional periods" CAN be ended by > announcement. Fixed.
