On 5/21/23 01:59, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> I counter by instead submitting the following proposal:
>
> {Adoption index = 3
>
> [Stop making small changes to fix things. This security issue happens all
> the time.]Exactly what non-small change would you want here? Your proposal is "small", too. This is really getting annoying. > Enact the following rule:"By default and unless otherwise specified, > assets, switches, and eir properties are secured at the power level of the > rule that defines them."} First, NttPF. Second, you've put the "adoption index" inside the text of the proposal. Third, why is this in a new rule? There's a perfectly good rule this can go into (R1688). Fourth, there are likely to be breakages, and I find it unlikely you audited the entire ruleset for things that might break. Fifth, when things inevitably do break, how would they be fixed? In all likelihood, more small proposals, fixing them piecewise as they're found. This isn't preventing "small changes" at all. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
