Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> I vote as follows:
>> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6
>
> AGAINST. I have expressed several concerns about this and Organizations
> which have not been addressed to my satisfaction.

天火狐, I found that email you were talking about. Honestly, I just
forgot. I'm sorry I didn't address you're concerns, and I'll try to
address them in the future. Just to respond to the specific criticism
you seem to be referring to, I think the sentence "Generally, an
organization CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is
unwilling to receive" implies that it can receive all other assets.

To all Agorans: I would really appreciate it if people would pass
this. I don't know what I've done wrong. I've put this proposal out
for public comment several times, and made nearly every suggested fix.
I get that there are still some flaws in this proposal. I understand
that it's not perfect. Nothing this big ever is. But I feel like
people are letting relatively minor imperfections sink the whole
proposal. I'm getting close to giving up here, because I don't feel
like people are thinking about what they're doing. I've spend
countless hours trying to get this ready because I feel like this kind
of system is necessary for our economy to move forward. Many economic
proposals require this to work (eg. pend tickets), or are at least
vastly simplified by it. Ambiguity and imperfection can be cleared up
by a clarificatory CFJ, or by amendment. Design is an iterative
process. But I feel like it's about time to get this out of
prototyping and into the real world. I'd like to have the support from
Agora that it needs to pass.

Thank you,
Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Josh T]

I vote as follows:
> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6

AGAINST. I have expressed several concerns about this and Organizations
which have not been addressed to my satisfaction.

> 7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial UpdatesQuazie 6

I endorse ais529 for resons similar to Aris.

> 7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7Quazie 6

PRESENT.

> 7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)  Quazie 6

PRESENT.

> 7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges   Quazie 6

FOR.

> 7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders...[4] Quazie 6

PRESENT.


天火狐



On 11 June 2017 at 23:40, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> > On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 18:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Fee
> >> 
> > I vote as follows:
> >> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6
> FOR. It's about time.
> >> 7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial UpdatesQuazie 6
> Endorse ais523, as it's in eir area of control.
> >> 7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7Quazie 6
> FOR
> >> 7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)  Quazie 6
> AGAINST. I just noticed that this is ambiguous, as it appears to say
> that only trivial proposals can be pended by the new mechanism, while
> defining trivial proposals in a rather subjective way.
> >> 7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges   Quazie 6
> FOR, despite reservations about the contract-like provisions.
> >> 7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders...[4] Quazie 6
> PRESENT. I'm going to stay out of this.
>
> -Aris
>