On 6/19/20 9:44 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters appear to > agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices disagree, but the > proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment presently favors something > along these lines.
I agree with free patch proposals, but I'm not sure it's right to say that "the voters" do: > PROPOSAL 8424 (Certifiable Patches) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: LEGISLATION > FOR (5): Aris&, Cuddle Beam, Falsifian, Jason&, Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus > AGAINST (5): G., R. Lee, Tcbapo, nch, twg > PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Trigon^ > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 23/15 (AI=1.0) > POPULARITY: 0.000 > OUTCOME: ADOPTED This only passed at AI 1 because of office interests, and it means any change besides just repealing the rule has a decent chance of failing. > > However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are > alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit logistically > interesting though because it's preferable for any such mechanism to be a) > fast, and b) discourage abuse. Unfortunately, those things go against each > other. This is why I suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse > after the fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran > Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also takes 4 > days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N support. The > problem with actions taken with N support is that you've gotta pick a value > of N that is high enough to stop a cabal of taking advantage of it and low > enough to be easily achievable. That being said, something like with 5 > support backed by a SHOULD might do it. Fair points on dependent actions. I think this is a reasonable application of indictments, so I'm tempted to suggest leaving it be and seeing what happens for now. > > A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be to just > take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending powers. I... wouldn't be opposed to this. It seems like a reasonable office perk/responsibility (backed by the threat of appropriate punishment for abuse). -- Jason Cobb
