Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Josh Twrote: > 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
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 Merchantwrote: > > 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 >