On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 10:31 AM Edward Murphy via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I pend the following proposal (identical to proto). > > Proposal: Clarify dependent actions > (AI = 3)
Statement from the Promotor: There has been some question as to whether this proposal was validly submitted. After considering precedent, it is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that the proposal was in fact submitted, but was not validly pended, because it was not specified that the pend fee was a pendant. I recommend that Murphy converge the submission and repend the proposal properly. -The Promotor Statement from Aris: This wasn't brought up on list at the time of the proto, and I'm sorry about that. That said... this is really hard to read. Like, I don't generally mind doing mental diffs for rules that are a paragraph long or something. But expecting people to do mental diffs for some of the longest rules in the game is a bit much? -Aris
