My draft report follows.
-Aspen
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 8, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s) AI Title
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8631& G. 1.0 another device defect
8632& G., nix 1.0 Forgiveness is a process
The proposal pool is currently empty.
Legend: <ID>* : Democratic proposal.
<ID>& : Ordinary proposal.
<ID>~ : Unsponsored proposal.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8631
Title: another device defect
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 2655 by replacing:
responsible for building and maintaining the Device.
with:
responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device.
and by deleting:
This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's
weekly report.
[with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly
switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to
get the weekly report reward. The intent is still part of "weekly duties"
but not the report.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8632
Title: Forgiveness is a process
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s): nix
The patent title Fugitive is hereby revoked from every person who
holds it.
Henceforth, the Herald SHOULD NOT list people as being "fugitives" in eir
reporting. [covers any "unofficial" listees who didn't have patent titles].
[note: this may be slightly more controversial than last time, given that
we've uncovered some of those listed actually hold patent titles, and we
generally don't revoke those in order to preserve history. For full
disclosure, who actually holds that title could be reconstructed in a
fairly straightforward manner (I think I found the requisite proposal
records), if the consensus is to keep the patent title holders in the
Scroll].
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
