[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Prop: Fixing the Broken Shelf

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/3/02 at 9:00 PM David E. Smith wrote:

>{{ __Fixing the Broken Shelf__
>
>Replace the text of Rule 15, Section E.4. with the following:
>
>{{
>'Shelve' votes count as negative votes.
>
>If a proposal fails, but would have passed if the 'shelve' votes had been
>affirmative votes, the proposal is considered to be shelved. At the
>beginning of the next nweek, a new proposal is created, with text and
>title identical to that of the shelved proposal. This new proposal has the
>same author as the original proposal, and a new serial number (with a
>revision number of 0), The new proposal does not consume any bandwidth.
>This paragraph supercedes subsection F of this rule.
>
>}}
>
>[[ Its bandwidth cost has already been paid, and apparently someone thinks
>it's a good idea, so why double-charge for it? Also, this changes the
>meaning of 'Shelve' votes slightly, but I think it's a change for the
>better. ]]
>
>}}

It takes out the "neither passed nor failed" part.  This is a big change, because failed proposals lose their proposers points.

As for the bandwidth, that was there for a reason: since the shelved proposal still belongs to the original author, e can totally rewrite it in the following nweek.  If the shelved prop doesn't count against eir bandwidth, e can have six proposals in that nweek that have nothing at all to do with the shelved one.

I'm for the status quo.

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss