On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:43:04PM +0000, Sam Hartman wrote: > Kurt> The solution to this problem is moving the majority check > Kurt> later in the process, so that option B would have been dropped > Kurt> first. If they did this stratigic voting in that case both > Kurt> options would have been dropped. > > So, I think this opens up far worse problems than it solves. > let's take a specific example. > > Let's assume that option 1 is amend the social contract to remove > non-free. > > Option 2 is some statement that discourages non-free, but isn't strong > enough to be a supermajority change. > > If option 1 wins but fails majority, w end up with FD winning.
This is a very good point, and it currently seems to me that the current situtation is better than the proposed change. Kurt