Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7852

[Owen Jacobson]

There was a defect in the original Payday rules for this round of economics 
that had two consequences:

1. Inaccuracies in the message purporting to perform the Payday payments likely 
rendered the whole attempt void, and

2. If the office of Secretary were to be vacant or idle, then Paydays would 
stop and we’d have to fall back to emergency mechanisms for pending proposals.

Having Payday happen automatically was the solution to that; you might note 
that my payday messages announce that Agora _has paid_, and not that I cause 
Agora to pay. So far, we’ve acted as if this is true.

There could be some defects in the updated wording, but I’d strongly prefered 
that we repair them in the direction of having Payday occur regardless of the 
activity of the Secretary.

-o

> On May 24, 2017, at 8:03 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Yeah - really seems like 'the secretary SHALL cause agora to pay' would be 
> more clear.
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 17:01 Ørjan Johansen  > wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, nichdel wrote:
> 
> > Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full:
> 
> >  Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published
> >  last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL
> >  pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office
> >  the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's
> >  balance at a negative value.
> 
> >  Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order
> >  of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office
> >  name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's
> >  Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a
> >  negative value.
> 
> Although it was already in the original, this use of "Agora SHALL" seems
> fishy to me - it doesn't say that the payment actually happens, and does
> not authorize anyone to make it. And the phrase "Agora SHALL" isn't used
> in any other Rule.  I suppose there might be a precedent...
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7852

[Quazie]

Yeah - really seems like 'the secretary SHALL cause agora to pay' would be
more clear.
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 17:01 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2017, nichdel wrote:
>
> > Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full:
>
> >  Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published
> >  last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL
> >  pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office
> >  the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's
> >  balance at a negative value.
>
> >  Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order
> >  of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office
> >  name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's
> >  Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a
> >  negative value.
>
> Although it was already in the original, this use of "Agora SHALL" seems
> fishy to me - it doesn't say that the payment actually happens, and does
> not authorize anyone to make it. And the phrase "Agora SHALL" isn't used
> in any other Rule.  I suppose there might be a precedent...
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal(s) 7852

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 24 May 2017, nichdel wrote:


Amend 2484 (Payday) to read, in full:



 Immediately afterward, for each duty-fulfilling report published
 last month (in chronological order of publication), Agora SHALL
 pay the publisher of the report the Report Rate for the office
 the report is associated with unless paying would leave Agora's
 balance at a negative value.



 Immediately afterward, for each office (first in ascending order
 of Payrate, then in descending alphabetical order of office
 name), Agora SHALL pay the holder of the office that office's
 Payrate value unless paying would leave Agora's balance at a
 negative value.


Although it was already in the original, this use of "Agora SHALL" seems 
fishy to me - it doesn't say that the payment actually happens, and does 
not authorize anyone to make it. And the phrase "Agora SHALL" isn't used 
in any other Rule.  I suppose there might be a precedent...


Greetings,
Ørjan.