Le Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:04:05AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 09:34:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > > I do not think that the only interpretation of a rejected GR is the > > contrary of its option(s). For instance, people can vote "Further > > Disucssion" because the text suggests that Joerg has the power to > > make the decisions he posted, despite they think that he has not. > > Yes, but then you have a lot of "clashes" in the reasons why people > are voting Further Discussion. I don't see any particular problem with > adding clarifying ballots and I do see the benefit.
On the other hand, each new option adds its own possibilities of misinterpretation (although the options proposed by Lucas are quite clear). By the way, if "Further discussion" is misinterpretable, how about "None of the above instead" ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
