On 21/11/14 at 10:59 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > That said, I do believe we are almost in the realm of bikeshed/minutiae > here, and I would see as a problem having a ballot with the above 6 > options + FD. So I do hope we can converge/compromise, at least among > option proposers, on a single option. > > If we cannot, I'm personally going to call for second on *one* myself > (the one that I consider most convincing), after giving this list (and > -ctte) at least 1 week of advance notice. Others can propose and/or > second amendments, taking on their share of responsibility for having a > larger ballot.
Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be: 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD I'm assuming your vote would be: 2 > 2-S > 2-R' > 2-R > FD This is hard to reconcile. But I don't think that a ballot with several options is necessarily very bad, as our voting system handles those cases just fine. What we should focus on is ensuring that it remains easy for everybody to understand and rank the various options. I think that we are in agreement with the various pros and cons of the various options: maybe options proposers could write together a short document explaining how the various options compare, and that document could be on the vote page? Also, it would make sense to order options on the ballot using the amount of churn they would produce as a metric, so that the above two votes would be 12345 and 43215, rather than 34215 :) > Lucas: can I conclude from your summary that you do *not* have a 7th > alternative proposal in the working (which is what I was assuming thus > far)? At this point I don't plan to propose anything else. Lucas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
