Tuesday, February 08, 2022

Proposal: Request for RFCs

Withdrawn by Author. Failed by TyGuy6.

Adminned at 09 Feb 2022 05:42:13 UTC

Add a new Rule, “Request for Comments”:

A Request for Comments (RFC) is a type of Voteable Matter that may be used in order to discuss, draft, and gather support for an intended change to the non-dynastic ruleset. The contents of a Pending RFC may be changed by its author at any time. A Vote of FOR on an RFC indicates willingness to vote FOR the intended change, should it be proposed as described in the body of the RFC. If an RFC has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and if they have not yet done so, the Author may, within a Proposal, cite the RFC as that Proposal’s precursor; and, for purposes of determining Popularity for that Proposal, this text from the Rule “Votes” shall not apply: “Exception: Proposals which would change the text of a Core, Special Case or Appendix rule if enacted cannot be Popular on this basis.”

A Pending RFC may be Failed by any Admin if it is has been Pending for more than 7 days, and has not been cited as precursor in a Proposal which is still Pending. It may also be Failed by any Admin if its author has cast a vote of AGAINST upon it. If a Proposal that cited an RFC has been Enacted or Failed, that RFC may be given the same status by any Admin.

We can use the “Story Post—Votable Matter” category temporarily while we try this out. Hopefully the sidebar will then display it below the other Votable Matters.

In case you’re wondering, “Official Posts” has the 4 hour edit window for all Votable Matters, but then allows edits with the phrase, “otherwise this can only be done as allowed by the Ruleset.” Also, the “Votable Matters” rules only allow Enacting/Failing for the three specific categories we already have, but don’t restrict other rules creating new categories with their own Resolution procedures.

posted by TyGuy6 at 08 Feb 2022 06:25:00 UTC Comments (6)

Comments

Josh: he/they

08-02-2022 09:00:53 UTC

What advantage does this have over simply doing the same thing informally - throwing up some text on the wiki, courting feedback on Discord, moving forward once some kind of consensus has emerged?

I tend to think that this will just clutter up the front page. Our history with ‘protosals’ seems to usually result in those posts not getting much attention and not necessarily passing more frequently when they do make it into a full proposal state, I think (citation needed, however).

TyGuy6:

08-02-2022 09:42:23 UTC

> What advantage does this have over simply doing the same thing informally…?

RFCs get sidebar status, which makes them more visible. Sure, we can discuss things in Discord, but it also gives them more apparent legitimacy, in my opinion.

> Our history with ‘protosals’ seems to usually result in those posts not getting much attention and not necessarily passing more frequently when they do make it into a full proposal state.

Maybe you’re right, I don’t have much experience with them. But in this case, the goal is to reach quorum on an RFC, which would then have the concrete effect of making the proposal much easier to pass.

Snisbo: she/they

08-02-2022 16:53:52 UTC

against Because of the possibility of using an RFC as the precursor to an entirely different proposal

Clucky: he/him

08-02-2022 17:26:01 UTC

I like the idea of giving RFCs sidebar status for more visibility, but I think needing to vote on them might be a pain. I’d rather they just be a way of getting eyes on the propostal.

But yeah, like supernova said, i can write an RFC get my Qurom of for votes and then edit it to say whatever I want.

Furhtermore,

“If an RFC has a number of FOR Votes that exceed or equal Quorum, and if they have not yet done so, the Author may, within a Proposal”

I would argue that the way this is written that

A) The RFC could be a failed RFC from several months ago and
B) “if they have not yet done so” could be used to suggested each player may do this once per ever

Brendan: he/him

08-02-2022 18:19:10 UTC

against Not generally in favor of protosals myself.

TyGuy6:

08-02-2022 19:18:55 UTC

>Because of the possibility of using an RFC as the precursor to an entirely different proposal

Well, I expect it not to get used in that way, because if someone does, they immediately break trust, which means their proposal isn’t as likely to pass, and their next RFC attempts won’t be viewed favorably. (I’m sure there’s something I could do to make a more explicit downside, but I’m trying to start simple.)


So, if I’m reading it right, Clucky wants protosals that don’t do anything, while Josh and Brendan dislike any type of protosals.  But Josh and I both want to be able to make changes to core rules without full quorum, we just differ about how to go about it.

Also, yes, the wording needs work. Withdrawn as per Clucky. against