Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
Well, maybe it would be better to make the Git repository the public forum and maybe have it be hosted not on GitHub to resolve the outside of TDoC and interface questions. On 06/20/2018 05:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Additional gratuity: > > There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub) > without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the > link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links) > would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication > timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence). > > The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a > typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message > and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct one. > (this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if > the matter is otherwise unclear). > > I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum, I'm not > opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the Now, > and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail > archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to > know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't > know about that would make it easier. > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> I, for one, would be willing to experiment with it, if we made sure that >> there was strict protections both technically and in the rules to avoid >> tampering or loss of information. >> >> On 06/20/2018 05:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>> wrote: I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being public fora. >>> We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although >>> admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). >>> >>> I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to >>> participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being >>> /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. >>> Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. >>> >>> It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for >>> recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than >>> recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives >>> from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. >>> >> -- >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
Additional gratuity: There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub) without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links) would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence). The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct one. (this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if the matter is otherwise unclear). I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum, I'm not opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the Now, and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't know about that would make it easier. On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I, for one, would be willing to experiment with it, if we made sure that > there was strict protections both technically and in the rules to avoid > tampering or loss of information. > > On 06/20/2018 05:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > wrote: > >> I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public > >> forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC > >> of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being > >> public fora. > > We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although > > admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). > > > > I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to > > participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being > > /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. > > Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. > > > > It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for > > recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than > > recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives > > from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. > > > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
I, for one, would be willing to experiment with it, if we made sure that there was strict protections both technically and in the rules to avoid tampering or loss of information. On 06/20/2018 05:17 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: >> I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public >> forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC >> of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being >> public fora. > We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although > admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). > > I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to > participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being > /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. > Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. > > It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for > recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than > recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives > from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 17:11 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public > forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC > of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being > public fora. We've had public fora that weren't mailing lists before now (although admittedly, it was a consequence of a scam). I'm opposed to being required to use any external interface to participate in the game. On the other hand, I'm less opposed to being /permitted/ to use an external interface to participate in the game. Reports could still go to a-o if necessary. It's probably a good idea to have an email copy of everything for recordkeeping purposes (i.e. Agora historical records, rather than recordkeepor records), but we could post that to the email archives from the Git repository using a hook, or perhaps in batches. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
I favor this with significant deference to anyone else. On 06/20/2018 03:16 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > >> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including >>> revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): >>> >>> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt >>> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt >>> >>> I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- >>> limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of >>> ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case >>> the rulesets bounce from BUS. >> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to >> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a >> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL >> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. >> >> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't >> it's probably because of your disclaimer. > > I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose. > A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they > want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as > the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required > information. > > CFJ: G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR. > > Arguments: See above. > > -Aris > >> -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
I raised the issue of having a certain GitHub repository as a public forum and people opposed it because it would not be within the TDoC of a member and it would break the precedent of mailing lists being public fora. On 06/20/2018 03:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could >> change the link contents instantly to anything before most people >> will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of >> those links is the only evidence. >> >> I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could >> cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. > Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > point? > >> Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" >> means actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's >> ISID. The cases that allowed outside references are generally by- >> announcement actions, where outside references work because the >> specification is like this: >> "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" >> for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual >> announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link >> that has a clear specification. >> >> So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" >> because e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link >> without an announced verb/context doesn't do the trick. > Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. > I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. > -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
Just as some added fun, note that I found an error (in the "last change" date, so not something required to be reported) - I pushed the fix so the current *document* behind the link is not the one it was when I published the links. Probably a moot point but there it is. On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:21 PM Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > > > wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > > > point? > > > > > > > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > > > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > > > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > > > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > > > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > > > impossible to publish a report by reference. > > > > Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- > > ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the > > time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are > > actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is > > purporting to be a report... > > > > (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that > > rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in > > other cases.) > > > The URL isn't purporting to be a report, it's purporting to contain a > report. I think there's a substantial difference. > > Are you suggesting that information can't be incorporated into a message by > reference? That happens all the time the legal systems of other > jurisdictions. Now, I'm not arguing that this even vaguely satisfies the > requirements for incorporation by reference, just that it's possible. > > -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:21 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > > wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > > point? > > > > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > > impossible to publish a report by reference. > > Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- > ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the > time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are > actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is > purporting to be a report... > > (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that > rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in > other cases.) The URL isn't purporting to be a report, it's purporting to contain a report. I think there's a substantial difference. Are you suggesting that information can't be incorporated into a message by reference? That happens all the time the legal systems of other jurisdictions. Now, I'm not arguing that this even vaguely satisfies the requirements for incorporation by reference, just that it's possible. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 13:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith > wrote: > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > > point? > > > It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as > suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the > receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring > confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and > originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally > impossible to publish a report by reference. Now I'm beginning to get concerned as to whether the URL itself self- ratifies, and whether that ratifies the content visible via it at the time. G. is right in that only the parts of the message that are actually sent to a public forum can self-ratify. So if a URL is purporting to be a report... (Of course, it doesn't matter for a Rulekeepor report as that rightfully doesn't self-ratify anyway. But it could be a problem in other cases.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of > > those links is the only evidence. > > > > I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could > > cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. > Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > point? It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally impossible to publish a report by reference. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. > I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. So first, I don't think you could argue that I published a Document that contained a report. So for the purposes of ratification (which in all cases is tied to the words "public document") I think this couldn't be ratified (based on common definitions of document). Now, "weekly reports" can be spread over multiple documents and ratified in parts. But Rule 2143 says "the publication of all such information" is the standard for reports. I think it stretches it quite a bit to say that you published ALL the information when some of that information hasn't in fact been published.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of > those links is the only evidence. > > I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could > cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some point? > Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" > means actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's > ISID. The cases that allowed outside references are generally by- > announcement actions, where outside references work because the > specification is like this: > "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" > for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual > announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link > that has a clear specification. > > So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" > because e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link > without an announced verb/context doesn't do the trick. Right, the message needs to contain enough context to find the action. I don't think that's a problem with the message in question, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > > the rulesets bounce from BUS. > > Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to > publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a > reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL > that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. > > This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't > it's probably because of your disclaimer. Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the only evidence. I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions, where outside references work because the specification is like this: "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that has a clear specification. So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an announced verb/context doesn't do the trick.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:10 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > > the rulesets bounce from BUS. > > Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to > publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a > reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL > that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. > > This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't > it's probably because of your disclaimer. I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose. A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required information. CFJ: G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR. Arguments: See above. -Aris > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] FLR and SLR
On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > the rulesets bounce from BUS. Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't it's probably because of your disclaimer. -- ais523
