On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:10 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > >>> > >>> Amend R208 by replacing: > >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > >>> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > >>> valid ballots. > >>> with: > >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > >>> was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > >>> tally of the voters' valid ballots. > >>> > >>> [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be > >>> CoEd > >>> and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first > >>> one > >>> with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. > >> > >> No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, > >> but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct > >> tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the > >> self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to > >> rewrite some of this. > > > > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying > weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was > posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"?
That's what I'm getting too, and that worries me. The rule is called "Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges" because its point is to stop the results of decisions from being challenged after a certain time. Finding out that a proposal that was believed to have passed had failed, or vice versa, could be a huge mess with massive indirect effects. Decision results are actually one of the most important things to ratify, and I'd oppose stopping ratifying them. -Aris
