[Nomic] Stuff (plus new proposal)

[David (Birch)]

Aye to taking insufficient notice.

I suggest perhaps that each proposal be followed by a letter (A), and that 
each revision be updated with a new letter (O, E, U, etc. (or whatever.))
 - and that a vote must specify which letter it refers to, or say something 
making it clear that it's voting for (X and all rules that have the same 
intent) or whatever. This is not a proposal, as it is not worded as one, 
but something to consider.

On Sep 26 2004, Adam Biltcliffe wrote:

> On Sep 26 2004, M.E.W. O'Leary wrote:
> 
> > I'm visiting Abi at the moment and don't really have time to sit down 
> > and go through all the details of proposals. However, I trust people to 
> > raise the same objections I would. Therefore I'm voting aye to all 
> > proposals made since my last post.
> 
> Excellent! Only Maz to respond and the Ministry can come into existence.
> 
> > On another issue, I believe the last notice of Consensus is invalid, 
> > as I never voted in favour of it. The rules which I voted in favour of 
> > were substantially equivalent to what was passed, but I think this is a 
> > dangerous precedent to be setting. I'd like to know people's opinions 
> > on this.
> 
> If you didn't vote in favour of the proposal, it can't be a Consensus of 
> Opinion. I'll remove the rule in question from the web page. If it's 
> 'substantially equivalent' to the rules you were in favour of, do you 
> want to vote in favour of it now (so Wild Card can issue another NoC and 
> we can put it back), or do you have specific objections?
> 
> I still think we need to revise the voting system, specifically to 
> address:
> 
> - Make sure proposals and revisions thereof are sufficiently distinct 
> that this confusion can't arise so easily - Eliminate the need for 
> unanimity (although I know people are against this) - Give proposals a 
> time limit, so the outcome of a proposal is definitely known after a 
> particular point
> 
> I also propose the following new rule:
> 
> ==========
> Insufficient Notices
> 
> Any voting entity who creates a document purporting to be a Notice of 
> Consensus which is not in fact valid shall be guilty of the crime of 
> Taking Insufficient Notice. ==========
> 
> adam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nomic-talk mailing list
> Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org
> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk
> 

-- 
----------
dtb26@cam.ac.uk
phone number 07906 638541