--- Log opened Thu Feb 07 00:00:41 2013
03:56 < conseo> mcallan: but then the tooling decides that only collective needs can be expressed (because candidates define accounts, but voters cannot formulate their individual material needs)
04:04 < conseo> i am off for work, cu later
14:54 < mcallan> voters *can* formulate material needs, either by (1) creating an account, just as a collective does; or
14:55 < mcallan> (2) voting for a downstream account that formulates the need
14:56 < mcallan> or (3) use the new change mechanism to propose an account for the entire branch
14:57 < mcallan> conseo: these methods should be sufficient to cover all needs
15:10 < mcallan> mind, u are right, these are not statements of an *individual's* needs, but rather the accounts from which the needed resources are drawn. i guess u are trying to design a method of withdrawal, which (seems to me) is just the execution of a plan, the plan agreed in the poll
--- Log closed Thu Feb 07 15:25:26 2013
--- Log opened Thu Feb 07 15:30:47 2013
16:12 < mcallan> i guess this should be documented. i've added the practice of "account sinking" to the patch relay section of my G/p/vohall notes. a patch may specify that certain resources must be accumulated in order to support the action. the proposal may therefore specify a resource account, in addition to the patch. the account will already be open on the proposer's position. on acceptance of the proposal, not only will the patch be applied downstream, but the account will sink downstream along with it
--- Log closed Fri Feb 08 00:00:53 2013