On 2/9/20 7:29 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I would absolutely prefer to see the full version from that site > posted to the mailing lists as it makes it much easier to work out. > Last time I mentioned conditional votes I believe you didn't mention > this site, and that was definitely one of the things. For this > particular draft, I definitely dislike the lack of additional > information about the proposal (class,chamber) and the way you show > voting strength using only symbols, but I would reasonably accept an > undertaking to address those as this is the first real resolution with > the new system. It would be ideal I think if the voting strength > calculation included, somewhere, at least a little breakdown of the > calculation (e.g. +1 from Speaker, -1 from blots, +4 from office > interest), but that's definitely going the extra mile.
Chamber and class can probably be worked in (though I'll have to figure out how to deal with old resolutions somewhat cleanly). Voting strengths were done with symbols just because that was what I thought would be the most compact (and, honestly, easiest to implement). I previously just listed all of the voting strengths (along with the reason for them) at the top because they were the same for each of the decisions, but that's not really an option now. If it would be easier to read, I could also do: FOR: Alexis (4), Gaelan (487), nch (0) As for the format, I just tried to mirror the one my predecessor (D. Margaux) used. Switching to a tabular format would probably be a lot of work, but I would consider it if there was more demand. -- Jason Cobb
