DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekyl report
Reminder to self for next week: mastwg and zombeam expire, there are intents to destroy mastwg, Avoiding IRRELEVANCE, and R. Lee keeps top-posting On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:59 PM Rebecca via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is the notary's weekly report. All times are in UTC (I hope). I also > note that there was a pledge not to create any proposals that briefly > existed (it was made by nch), but that pledge's time window helpfully > expired at the most recent proposal distribution. > === CONTRACT === > |🧟✨Chattelbeam✨🧟 rev. 2| > |PARTIES: Cuddlebeam, twg | > > This contract only has up to two parties, one of the which is the > Superzombie and the other is the Supermaster. > > A Player can become the Supermaster by announcement unless a Player > already currently is the Supermaster. > > A Supermaster is either Active or Inactive, and they default to being > Inactive. > > Cuddlebeam is a party to this contract, and is the Superzombie. > > An Active Supermaster can act on behalf of the Superzombie to perform > any action on their behalf except for the following: > >- enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement; >- initiate a Call for Judgement; >- grant consent; >- deregister. > > If a Supermaster has been Inactive for more than 7 days, that > Supermaster ceases to be a party of this contract. > > A Supermaster becomes Active (and ceases to be Inactive) by Pledging > the following: > "I Pledge to cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora. The "N" of this Pledge, > for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking, is a > googolplex, and its time window is 90 days.". > > A Supermaster that has been Active for more than 90 days ceases to be a > party of this contract. > > While there is an Active Supermaster, Cuddlebeam cannot perform actions > unless someone acts on their behalf to perform them. > > Notes: > twg is the Supermaster, and is Active. E will cease to be a party to > the contract on May 29, 2020 at 21:33 UTC. > > History: > Feb 29 2020 18:15: Cuddlebeam created > Feb 29 2020 18:26: twg joined > Feb 29 2020 19:29: Cuddlebeam amended(1) by mutual consent > Feb 29 2020 21:33: twg became Active > Mar 01 2020 13:20: twg amended(2) by mutual (implied) consent > > > === CONTRACT === > |The Dragon Corporation rev. 2| > |PARTIES: Warrigal | > > ## Bylaw 1: Definition > > This contract is named "the Dragon Corporation". The purpose of the > Dragon Corporation is to earn as much money as possible for its > shareholders. > > All other provisions of this contract notwithstanding, this contract > does not permit any entity to act on behalf of any other entity. > > Shares of Dragon stock (also known as "shares of DRGN", or, in this > contract, "shares") are a currency whose purpose is to represent > ownership of the Dragon Corporation. An entity which owns at least one > share is known as a shareholder. > > If, at any time, the Dragon Corporation or the Lost and Found Department > owns any shares, then those shares are destroyed. > > Any person CAN, by announcement, become a party to this contract or > cease to be a party to this contract. A shareholder who is a party to > this contract is known as a member. > > Wherever this contract states that an entity becomes a party to this > contract or ceases to be a party to this contract, all parties to this > contract are considered to consent to this change. > > ## Bylaw 2: Proposals > > Any member CAN, by announcement, submit a Corporate Proposal. A > Corporate Proposal must have exactly one of the types defined by this > contract. Thereafter, any member CAN vote FOR or AGAINST that proposal > by announcement, or retract such a vote, which causes the vote to become > null and void. Whenever a member votes, all of eir previous votes on the > same proposal are implicitly retracted. > > If a Corporate Proposal was submitted more than 4 but fewer than 21 days > ago, and the proposal has approval (as defined in other bylaws), and the > proposal has not been applied, then any member may, by announcement, > apply the proposal, which has effects as defined in other bylaws. > > Members SHALL NOT submit, vote for, or apply proposals that are > egregiously unfair to other shareholders (such as a proposal which takes > or revokes shares from minority shareholders without just compens
Re: DIS: [proto] Talismans
On 5/22/20 5:21 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> I've shamelessly stolen the name from Warrigal's dead contract.
>
>
> Title: Talismans
Alright, I've taken the feedback and rewritten it. As always, I'd love
feedback on it.
Title: Talismans
Adoption index: 3.0
Coauthors: nch, Falsifian
{
For the purposes of this proposal, a player's prior master is eir master
before this proposal applies any effects.
Amend Rule 2532 to read, in whole:
{
A talisman is an indestructible asset, tracked by the Registrar, and
with ownership wholly restricted to players and Agora. There exists
exactly one talisman for each player; if one does not exist for a
certain player, it is created in eir posession. Talismans CAN only be
transferred as explicitly specified by the rules.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN, by announcement,
transfer the talisman for em to emself. The master of a player is the
entity that possess eir talisman. A player who is eir own master is
active; any other player is a zombie (syn. inactive).
The master of a player CAN act on behalf of em to perform any action
except the following:
   - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
   - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
   - bid in a zombie auction;
   - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
   - initiate a Call for Judgement;
   - create blots;
   - deregister.
If a master causes a zombie to perform an ILLEGAL action, the master
commits the Class 4+N Crime of Masterminding (where N is the class of
the illegal action).
If an active player who was a zombie has not received a Welcome Package
since e most recently ceased being a zombie, and if eir resale value was
less than 2 at any point during eir most recent time as a zombie, then
any player CAN cause em to receive a Welcome Package by announcement.
}
Amend Rule 2574 to read, in whole:
{
Any player CAN, with notice, transfer the talisman for an active player
who has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days to Agora.
Resale value is a secured natural switch for zombies, tracked by the
Registrar, with a default value of 2. Whenever the talisman for a zombie
is transferred to a player, that zombie's resale value is decreased by
1. At the end of a zombie auction, the resale value of every zombie that
is an excess lot in that auction decreases by 1.
The talisman of a zombie with zero resale value CANNOT be transferred to
any player other than that zombie.
Any player CAN, with notice:
   - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had
Agora for a master during any of that time, transfer the talisman for em
to Agora;
   - If a player possesses more than one talisman, specify transfer one
of those talismans to Agora;
   - Deregister a zombie whose resale value is zero and for which Agora
possesses the talisman.
The Registrar SHALL track the date that a talisman for each zombie last
belonged to Agora in eir weekly report. The Registrar SHALL perform all
POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion after
first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir weekly report.
}
[Zombie auction rules TBD; probably needs to be coordinated with any
auction reform.]
Amend Rule 2575 by replacing the final sentence with
"Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the talisman for the Distributor
is possessed by emself, and e CANNOT deregister or be deregistered."
For each player who is not eir own prior master, transfer the talisman
for em to eir prior master.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Draft Proposal: External Opinions
On 5/25/2020 6:06 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Reenact Rule 1365, "External Opinions" at power-1.7 with the following text: > A player CAN submit an External Concurring or Dissenting opinion > for a given CFJ decision, decided in the past week, with 1 Support. > The opinion must reference the CFJ in question and clearly indicate > that it is an opinion to be appended to that CFJ. The opinion should > be accompanied by reasons or arguments. The Arbitor SHALL append any > properly submitted opinion to the CFJ in question, along with a list > of the Player who submitted that opinion and the player(s) who > supported it. Note that the Arbitor has no duty to publish/report the CFJ after a decision is made, so the SHALL has no real meaning there - that's wholly unofficial duty of the CotC. It also means (in practical terms, whomever does it), publishing the final case log would need to wait a full week for comments. Since sometimes that "final" case log is what triggers appeals, waiting a full week for that seems kind of harmful? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Sets v1.3.1
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020, 02:14:30 GMT+1, nch via agora-business wrote: > The Promotor CAN distribute a pending proposal which is in the > Proposal Pool at any time. For safety, I would prefer "The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time, but SHALL NOT do so unless it is pending". This is what we've used for previous pending mechanics. A nice side effect of this is that we don't have to reverse things when someone discovers a mispend before the proposal results self-ratify (which can be quite a while after the proposal is distributed). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Sets v1.3.1
On Tuesday, 26 May 2020, 02:14:30 GMT+1, nch via agora-business wrote: > Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal > is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned > attributes can be changed except as described in the rules. The ban on changing the text of a proposal was added to the rules specifically to prevent the repeat of an escalator scam (in which a power-1 rule made a power-3 change to the ruleset via editing a proposal between the end of the voting period and the assessment of the proposal). This change would reintroduce the scam. At least the proposal's text and AI need to be secured against edits at power 3. (I'm not sure whether other properties need the same protection.) -- ais523
DIS: Draft Proposal: External Opinions
G. mentioned last week that e was interested in bringing back the appeals court. I like that idea, but while doing some other research, I ran across a fun mechanism, which I would like to play with in the interim. Here's a slightly modified version of the old mechanism as a proto: Title: External Opinions AI: 1.7 Author: P.S.S. Coauthors: Reenact Rule 1365, "External Opinions" at power-1.7 with the following text: A player CAN submit an External Concurring or Dissenting opinion for a given CFJ decision, decided in the past week, with 1 Support. The opinion must reference the CFJ in question and clearly indicate that it is an opinion to be appended to that CFJ. The opinion should be accompanied by reasons or arguments. The Arbitor SHALL append any properly submitted opinion to the CFJ in question, along with a list of the Player who submitted that opinion and the player(s) who supported it. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Thesis Snippet
On Monday, May 25, 2020 4:24:56 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Your two examples are an interesting contrast in that they are probably > the "longest between resets" and "shortest between resets" systems, but > you don't get a sense of that from your descriptions - so maybe a > "frequency of reset" or similar? I do have some ideas for taxonomy but I'm waiting to have more of the systems covered so I can tell which categories make the most sense. I'll keep accrual/ reset period in mind as a possible one. Thanks! -- nch
DIS: [Research Request] Thoughts on Technical Domains of Control
I'm currently starting on a thesis about technical domains of control. I'm planning to build on my judgement in CFJ 3642 and incorporate an even more thorough review of the literature and, if I can, draw analogies to other systems. I then plan to make some proposals about better ways to think about it. However, before I get deeper into the technical side of things, I am interested in what other people think about it. What do people think? Are there any other resources, particularly non-CFJs, that people could recommend on this topic? What do people view as appropriate analogies in other systems, whether other games/nomics or real world situations? What resources would you recommend about this? Obviously, answering all of these questions is a lot of work and the goal of my thesis, but if anything quickly comes to mind, I'd appreciate any contributions. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Thesis Snippet
On 5/25/2020 12:41 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > I wanted to send along a small snippet of the economy thesis I'm working on > to > get feedback. My main questions are > > 1) What kind of information does everyone want for each economic system and Your two examples are an interesting contrast in that they are probably the "longest between resets" and "shortest between resets" systems, but you don't get a sense of that from your descriptions - so maybe a "frequency of reset" or similar? One feature I'd note for Stems is that within certain limits, the different officers controlled the throughput of their respective currencies - A particular feature was officers running on genuine economic platforms like "If elected I'll increase the indulgence supply" (with their opponent then calling them "soft on crime" or something). So maybe a field for "supply controlled by...", (which kind of combines with "frequency of reset" or "gameplay speed" as I think of it[0]). [0] if all of the systems involve pay-to-pend (most do?), maybe "rate of proposal pending" is a common metric, I dunno. > 2) are the flowcharts good? Look clear to me!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On 2020-05-25 14:15, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 2020-05-25 12:23, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: and under common definitions and terms used in auctions, We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types with different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the closing of bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the whole time. Perhaps players can choose the type of auction for themselves, but must specify which type before initiation. I agree; it could be interesting to try an all-pay auction (for instance) if the officer wanted to try one. Seems like a great way to incite chaos and unsurety; therefore, this gets a definite stamp of approval from me. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On Monday, May 25, 2020 3:15:39 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 2020-05-25 12:23, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > > > wrote: > > >> and under common definitions and terms used > > >> > > >>in auctions, > > > > > > We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types > > > > with > > > > > different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the > > > > closing of > > > > > bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the > > > > whole > > > > > time. > > > > Perhaps players can choose the type of auction for themselves, but must > > specify which type before initiation. > > I agree; it could be interesting to try an all-pay auction (for instance) > if the officer wanted to try one. > > -Aris I think the ideal is to 1) make it where they have to announce the type at initiation and 2) let rules specify a type (in case we decide we want certain auctions to be specific types). -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 1:14 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-05-25 12:23, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > >> and under common definitions and terms used > >>in auctions, > > > > We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types > with > > different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the > closing of > > bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the > whole > > time. > > Perhaps players can choose the type of auction for themselves, but must > specify which type before initiation. > I agree; it could be interesting to try an all-pay auction (for instance) if the officer wanted to try one. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On 2020-05-25 12:23, nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: and under common definitions and terms used in auctions, We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types with different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the closing of bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the whole time. Perhaps players can choose the type of auction for themselves, but must specify which type before initiation. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: [Proto] College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
> On May 25, 2020, at 16:12, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 2020-05-24 23:50, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:26 PM nch via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:44:42 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion >>> wrote: This is a reform of the degrees system. It has been bothering me for ages that we don't have clear criteria for what theses qualify for each degree. For instance, no one seems to be sure whether artistic works can qualify for a degree. This proposal would establish standards (in terms of level of contribution, not word-count), create a separate track of degrees for artistic works, and (while I'm at it) rename Doctor degrees to Doctorate degrees to match all the other degrees in being gender neutral. I hope this will be favorably received, but I'm somewhat scared that G. will find something in here to grumble about, so I'm submitting it as a proto first. :) -Aris --- Title: College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Amend Rule 1367, "Degrees", by changing it to read as follows: Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are - Associate of Nomic (A.N.) - Juris Doctorate of Nomic (J.N.) - Baccalaureate of Nomic Artistry(B.N.A.) - Baccalaureate of Nomic (B.N.) - Magisteriate of Nomic Artistry (M.N.A) - Magisteriate of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctorate of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.) - Doctorate of Nomic Artistry(D.N.Art.) - Doctorate of Nomic Law (D.N.Law.) - Doctorate of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.) - Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.) Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher. A specific degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once. >>> >>> Is it intentional that this means there's a hierarchy among the Doctorates >>> (and Magisteriates and Baccalaureates)? Seems a little strange conceptually. >>> Although very appropriate for Agora that Philosophy ranks highest. >> *shrug* >> It's that way now, but I can change it. It is strange conceptually. > > Perhaps a few tiers? > > - Associate Tier: A.N. > - Baccalaureate Tier: J.N., B.N.A., B.N. > - Magesteriate Tier: M.N.A., M.N. > - Doctorate Tier: D.N.* > > Each tier rates higher than all those above it, representing an increase in > contribution, but each variety of degree in each tier is considered equal. > > -- > Trigon I like it the way that it is and would like to keep it as it is because it is reflective of how degrees are treated at most universities.
Re: DIS: [Proto] College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
On 2020-05-24 23:50, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:26 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: On Sunday, May 24, 2020 4:44:42 PM CDT Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: This is a reform of the degrees system. It has been bothering me for ages that we don't have clear criteria for what theses qualify for each degree. For instance, no one seems to be sure whether artistic works can qualify for a degree. This proposal would establish standards (in terms of level of contribution, not word-count), create a separate track of degrees for artistic works, and (while I'm at it) rename Doctor degrees to Doctorate degrees to match all the other degrees in being gender neutral. I hope this will be favorably received, but I'm somewhat scared that G. will find something in here to grumble about, so I'm submitting it as a proto first. :) -Aris --- Title: College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-author(s): Amend Rule 1367, "Degrees", by changing it to read as follows: Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are - Associate of Nomic (A.N.) - Juris Doctorate of Nomic (J.N.) - Baccalaureate of Nomic Artistry(B.N.A.) - Baccalaureate of Nomic (B.N.) - Magisteriate of Nomic Artistry (M.N.A) - Magisteriate of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctorate of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.) - Doctorate of Nomic Artistry(D.N.Art.) - Doctorate of Nomic Law (D.N.Law.) - Doctorate of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.) - Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.) Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher. A specific degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once. Is it intentional that this means there's a hierarchy among the Doctorates (and Magisteriates and Baccalaureates)? Seems a little strange conceptually. Although very appropriate for Agora that Philosophy ranks highest. *shrug* It's that way now, but I can change it. It is strange conceptually. Perhaps a few tiers? - Associate Tier: A.N. - Baccalaureate Tier: J.N., B.N.A., B.N. - Magesteriate Tier: M.N.A., M.N. - Doctorate Tier: D.N.* Each tier rates higher than all those above it, representing an increase in contribution, but each variety of degree in each tier is considered equal. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: [Proto] College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
On 2020-05-24 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 9:50 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-05-24 15:44, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: An Associate of Nomic degree SHOULD be awarded for a thesis that adds appreciably to Agoran culture, but fails to qualify for another degree. Baccalaureate level degrees (which include the J.N) SHOULD be awarded when the thesis demonstrates a substantial contribution, Magisteriate degrees for a remarkable contribution, and Doctorate degrees for an exceptional contribution. Any degree at the Doctorate level SHOULD take into account the awardee's academic history and participation in Agora over time. I'm not sure the majority of this paragraph is really necessary. This doesn't really add any more specificity to the system we already use. If you're intent on keeping it, though, maybe describe to what exactly the "contribution" should go. As it stands right now, though, I think it's unnecessary. The last sentence is good though; it gives more meaning to the Doctorate level and its standards. It may not be necessary, but I want there to be text somewhere that explains the standard. What's the difference? It isn't written down anywhere. I'd prefer for the rule to be as specific as I can make it, given our admittedly vague standards. At least this way there are a set of recommendations. I guess I didn't explain myself very well. My point is that I don't think we need to codify this in a separate paragraph. The hierarchy of degrees should imply on its own that each level is a greater contribution, and the paragraph that defines it in the rule is no more clear than the list itself. Besides, I think that some things in Agora, for instance the understanding of what merits which degree, *should* be completely informal. Maybe this is not a valid point because the proposal doesn't actually limit anything. I just still feel like it's a bit unnecessary. -- Trigon
DIS: Thesis Snippet
I wanted to send along a small snippet of the economy thesis I'm working on to
get feedback. My main questions are
1) What kind of information does everyone want for each economic system and
2) are the flowcharts good?
Any other feedback also appreciated. Anyway, here it is:
{
===
Summarized Timeline
===
2000Stems begins [1]
04/24/03 Stems Ends, Tabla Rasa Begins due to Proposal 4486 [2]
12/05/16 Shinies Begins
=
Stems
=
2000-04/24/03
Description
-
The fungible currency, Stems, is given to players as a basic income and also
give to officers. Players could belong to one of three groups, which gave them
the ability to bid at one of three auctions, each corresponding to a different
asset type: Papyrii, which allowed players to make their proposal
distributable; Indulgences, which allowed players to remove penalties they've
incurred; and Voting Entitlements, which gave players more voting power on
proposals.
[Basic Income, Office Income] -> Stems
Stems -{Auction}-> Papyrii, Indulgences, Voting Entitlements
Papyrii -> [Make a proposal distributable]
Indulgences -> [Remove incurred penalties]
Voting Entitlement -> [Have extra voting power]
=
Tabla Rasa
=
04/24/03-
Description
-
Tabla Rasa does not introduce any tradeable assets. Players gained two types
of titles, Boons and Albatrosses, from positive and negative actions
respectively. Once a quarter each player was given a budget of Kudos, which
was calculated based off the number of Boons and Albatrosses each player had.
Kudos were spent to perform many actions: making proposals distributable,
removing blots, skipping timers for role changing, increasing eir own voting
power, setting the chamber for a proposal, and so on.
[(Positive) Rule Defined Action] -> Boon
[(Negative Rule Defined Action] -> Albatross
Once a quarter:
Base+Boons-Albatrosses -> Kudos
Kudos -> [make proposals distributable], [remove blots], [increase voting
power], [change roles], [set proposal chambers]
}
DIS: Re: BUS: a regulatory experiment (auctions)
On Monday, May 25, 2020 11:40:01 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > and under common definitions and terms used > in auctions, We may want to specify which type of auction, since there's many types with different rules. I don't think anyone would be very happy if at the closing of bids the auctioneer declared that it had been an all-pay auction the whole time. -- nch
Re: DIS: [proto] Talismans
On 5/25/20 12:13 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > Alternatively, maybe take an entirely different approach: Create a talisman > in > the possession of a player when they register (and one in every active > player's possession when this proposal passes), transfer that talisman as > necessary for everything else (to Agora when they go inactive, then to the > auction winner), destroy it when they deregister. There's a lot less > potential > for creation/destruction bugs there I think. > > > I like that; I think I'll go with that for the next draft. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Backup Conservatism
On 5/24/2020 4:25 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Backup Conservatism > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): Murphy, nch, G. > I do not wish to be a co-author of this proposal. thanks.
