> From: Leif Mortenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > What about setting it up so that a -1 is a vote by default. > If someone > really > wants to pull the veto card then they can specifically write -VETO or > something > like that. This way people can safely vote their disapproval > without it > being > as strong as a veto. The ability to veto any vote will still be > preserved this way. > > -1 can be viewed as a simple vote without stepping on any > toes. If a user > writes VETO on a vote, then they should be required to > explain themselves > thoroughly.
Unfortunately that doesn't work. Not expressing your oppinion in voting is giving the message "I don't care what you do in this matter". I don't want to change the expected semantic from that to "I am against your proposal" which is what a -1 expresses. Honestly, the -1 vote means that there needs to be some more discussion. It might be that the concept is sound, but the implementation needs to be reworked. It might be that the concept and implementation are good, but we need test cases to prove it. ALL -1 votes should provide a topic for community discussion, and in the end should be resolvable by the community. If that means that the proposal gets dropped for the time being (i.e. several -1 votes) then the person can either choose to take a different approach with what they were proposing or they can drop it themselves. The -1 is a safety net. Different people have different backgrounds, and if one person has been burned by a bad design or a security hole, they will be able to recognize the culprit in new code being proposed. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
