5

Proposal: Typst

In here a mod has said the proposal will be closed:

enter image description here

When will that actually happen? It's already been a while.

1
  • 3
    Giving potential sockers more time to out themselves? Feb 23 at 14:56

4 Answers 4

3

As of two days ago, the proposal has finally been closed. That is a reaction time of 52 days or 38 business days (from time of the decision; longer if you begin to count when the issue has been brought up).

3

In my opinion it either has to be closed right now or not at all.

4
  • Fraud should be accepted as long as it's been a while since it was done, then, or all offences must be given immediate priority regardless of what other work is needed?
    – Nij
    Feb 27 at 6:18
  • 2
    Nothing that I said suggests that "fraud should be accepted". The proposal also doesn't need to be shut down just because of some fraudulent activity: many participants like myself, were not fraudulent. How hard is it to close the proposal if that's what they want to do? If they don't do it immediately, it can waste people's time like it did mine. Feb 27 at 11:08
  • By saying it should not be closed, you require the fraud to be accepted, as the proposal cannot be reset to exclude the false support. The proposal seemed dubious from the start as at best a promotion scheme, wasting people's time is squarely on the proposer who did not demonstrate legitimate support or information. Perhaps if there is such difficulty for someone to correctly identify fraud, they should take learning from the situations it occurs, to avoid being caught out next time?
    – Nij
    Feb 27 at 18:19
  • 2
    You have no idea what you're talking about and you're mischaracterizing the whole situation and putting words in my mouth. Feb 27 at 18:49
0

Checking on the proposal, it seems that it has mostly just died down, with the latest apparent "activity" (in terms of what Area 51 considers activity) most likely being an upvote. (I've been checking on it around once or twice every day to confirm this)

My guess is that it will most likely be closed in ~7 days from now most likely due to not meeting the minimum activity requirements for a proposal on Area 51.

2
  • 2
    The die-down was not in small part caused by the comment that triggered this question. If the reason for closing will now be low activity, that is an absolute travesty. Mar 20 at 18:45
  • @SillyFreak I never mentioned a possible reason why it has died down. All I mentioned is that the activity has died down. Although I do agree that it is a travesty if the reason for closing now ends up being due to low activity.
    – CrSb0001
    Mar 20 at 18:58
-3

With many "for certain" legit users, don't see why it should be

7
  • 1
    And yet, @Nij .... it's been 18 days (as of 09 Mar 2024), and the SE staff has done nothing to close it. If it's actually "fraud-boosted", it should have been closed a couple weeks ago.
    – warren
    Mar 10 at 4:23
  • They've said it will be closed. Presumably this is nowhere near the highest priority right now. Given the outcome is all but assured, what's the difficulty in just leaving it to die in process.
    – Nij
    Mar 10 at 5:51
  • Still the same as the response you got two weeks ago: it's potentially wasting legitimate users' time. If you look at area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/128185/… you can see that this is actually happening. I won't count myself in this as my interaction with the proposal was mostly before the mod comment, but that doesn't negate the reality of this issue. Mar 12 at 13:33
  • Meh. Basic due diligence is important. If people don't care enough about a proposal to even read the very first links provided, one of which explicitly questions the legitimacy of it... I wonder how much time is wasted by SE doing nothing, the honest user doing nothing, and the fraudulent users lying. It's not 100% one option, and it's not listed in "biggest portion first".
    – Nij
    Mar 13 at 9:49
  • 1
    Well, the only actual answers on that post don't say that. The mod only left a comment, and comments should not be used to answer questions. Even legitimate due diligence could have missed that. Also, "fraudulent users lying"? The problem is sock puppet accounts, so most likely just one fraudulent user. And none of the accounts participating here on Meta have histories that make them look like one of those sock puppets, so lying is not an issue here. Mar 14 at 15:05
  • Regardless, the action or inaction of any other actors has no influence on the fact that there's no legitimate reason to not close the proposal almost a month after the statement, and almost as long after asking for action. Mar 14 at 15:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .