Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
* Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't plan on ranking first. This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to get it voted on? I can't believe I'm reading this. You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. (On the other hand, I think seconding is different, and that it should be okay to second stuff even just because I think it's good for it to be on the ballot.) -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Que no te vendan amor sin espinas -- Joaquín Sabina, Noches de boda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]: Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes: You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't plan on ranking first. (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.) This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in order to get it voted on? I can't believe I'm reading this. I think perhaps you're reading more into it than I wrote. You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything else. -- \ “I'm having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I feel like | `\ I've forgotten this before sometime.” —Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
* Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]: You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything else. No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one unit unless painstakingly necessary. This is, of course, my opinion, and you're welcome to disagree. Also, I'll probably won't be interested in discussing this any further, so please don't take my lack of answer to your next message as lack of disagreement. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Vanessa-Mae - Doun -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Adeodato Simó d...@net.com.org.es writes: * Ben Finney [Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:17:28 +1100]: You should not write options you are not going to rank first, because the people who do care about that option winning should get to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion and concerns. The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed. They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to second the wording as already proposed, or anything else. No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce resource. Agreed. I don't see what in my position you're disagreeing with, but I'm likewise no longer interested in this side discussion as I feel it's already resolved a few days ago. We can leave it here. -- \ “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to | `\persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” —Carl | _o__)Sagan | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options would be more careful about the effects that their options may have, and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't plan on ranking first. Anthony Towns seconded his own recall vote, as DPL. Do you think he should not have done that? He voted 21 (FD over recall), so no. Of coure, that option had more than 5 othere seconds, each of whom voted 12, so it didn't do anything to cause us to vote on an option that we wouldn't of had a need to vote on otherwise. Since 48 people voted 12, the K (or Q, 1.5Q or 2Q) seconds could have easily come from them. I seconded both proposal B and proposal D on 2004_004, and did not rank both equally at number one (rather, I voted proposal B at 1, and proposal D at 2). Do you think I should not have done that? That's fine, since you ranked them both highly. There's a benefit to seconding options which represent compromises that you support. There's no benefit to seconding options which you do not, just to see them go down in flames in the election. [If an option cannot get the required number of seconders from people who actually support it, it's almost assuredly going down in flames in the election.] In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that you want to see resolved. The statement I second this proposal only means I want to see this voted on, not I support this statement, and I think that's a good thing. I disagree. We shouldn't be having votes or options on the ballot purely for the sake of having votes or options on the ballot. Our voting process exists to resolve conflicts in a manner that DDs support; having options that DDs do not support on the ballot does not help that process. I view seconding as a trial run for a particular option involving a smaller number of people who vouch their support for that option so that the entire project does not have to be involved in dealing with options that do not have wide enough support to even have a chance of winning. Making the seconding process more difficult by increasing the number of seconds and trying to avoid seconding options that we ourselves do not support will help keep the project at large from wasting time reading and understanding ballot options that are not widely supported. Don Armstrong -- There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Bach http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
