On 6/20/20 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/20/2020 1:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/20/20 8:50 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/20/20 7:20 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> This may be the programmer in me speaking, but I don't think it's a good >>>> idea to couple these two values together. I think it will be easier in >>>> the future if rules can look at whether a proposal is distributable vs >>>> whether it is eligible for rewards separately. >>> Can't they do so under this system? "ready" means distributable, but >>> "Ready Method is Pended" means it's eligible for rewards. What's the >>> advantage of separating it? >>> >> G. recently mentioned urgent proposals, so I'll use that as an example. >> Imagine we wanted to add a different method of pending that also changed >> how the proposal behaved in some other way. If we keep pending & >> eligibility separate, we don't have to update the central definition of >> eligibility since the new method could just flip a switch from eligible >> to ineligible (or vice-versa). >> >> Also, I'm not saying keeping them together is a horrible idea - the >> proposal looks fine and it will probably work just fine for now. I just >> think separating them might make our lives slightly easier in the future. > How about defining "pending" as a continual state evaluation not a switch? > > E.g. "A proposal is pending if any of the following are true: > - Its foo switch is set to X; > - Its bar switch is set to W; > - etc." > > then we can just add to the list.
That would work, though I feel like this might lead to something similar to the awkward wording we had to add to deal with continuous evaluation of voting strength. I'm really unsure if there's even a best option here, since they all seem to have different tradeoffs. Whatever gets chosen probably won't end up changing any votes, though, so it's not really a big deal. -- Jason Cobb
