| 11 Sep 2018 |
 @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] however, it could be useful to have up to 3 types of votes on a given proposal | 22:38:35 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] there's the basic approval vote, a sentiment vote, and a defund vote | 22:39:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] a sentiment vote would be a first stage approval on a proposal, but not an approval to fund it | 22:42:42 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] this might be making things pointlessly complex | 22:42:52 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] and as @jy-p and i discussed we may be able to tie proposals together and achieve this; but this will require some sort of “linking” between proposals | 22:45:18 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] so we could add a metadata stream that forward link to another prop | 22:48:20 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] hmmm | 22:48:23 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] being able to link propositions could be good from a record keeping perspective in general | 22:49:13 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] e.g. have a "related proposals" section at the end | 22:49:55 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] this actually sounds pretty doable | 22:50:00 |
 richardred | the 3 types of voting is raising quite a few questions for me, like when would a defund vote be used and who would trigger it | 22:50:28 |
 Haon | the way I see it, is that the "sentiment vote" is done in the comment section where people can review the proposal | 22:50:45 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] that is procedural | 22:50:53 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] i am thiinking mechanics | 22:51:00 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] what are the atomic functions we need to enable said behavio | 22:51:12 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] now that you mentioned linking proposals, i like it from an organizational standpoint | 22:51:13 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] yeah me too 🙂 | 22:51:50 |
| richardred | linking proposals makes a lot of sense to me too | 22:51:57 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] but that is a non trivial amount of work | 22:52:00 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/moo31337] but the good news is that it fits in the current architecture | 22:52:11 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] could also be parent proposals and children | 22:52:44 |
| Haon | if the rough consensus in the comments is: "you need to improve X" the submitter knows that it's probably better to improve his proposal before opening the vote | 22:53:21 |
| Haon | "sentiment votes" by ticket holders may lead to voting fatigue | 22:54:12 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] separate proposals probably makes the most sense | 22:54:50 |
| richardred | on sentiment vote, my thinking was that if your proposal doesn't specify details about budget and milestones it is effectively a sentiment vote. a subsequent proposal with said details could reference a successful sentiment vote | 22:55:06 |
| Haon | in that case it definitely makes sense to have linked proposals | 22:56:09 |
| @bridge:decred.org | [slack/jy-p] that progression was what i was getting at richardred | 22:56:44 |
| Haon | will this delay the release date of Politeia though? | 22:56:55 |
| Haon | I hope that we can go live with the current version asap | 22:57:10 |
| Haon | I've been telling people for way to long: "put that idea up on the proposal platform, which will be live soon" | 22:58:11 |
