Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Sure, I'm all for clarity and precision. I just don't see a reason
> to put the ones that no one wants to champion on the final ballot.
Nor do I. You still seem to be making an unnecessary connection
between “the option isn't well supported enough to be on the ballot”
and “there's no good reason to propose the option in the first place”.
That, or you seem to think I'm proposing to lower the barrier of entry
for options, once proposed, to appear on the ballot; that's not what
I'm saying either.
I think it can be a good idea to propose an option that one wants to
see voted on, especially if one honestly thinks that option could
represent the opinion of other people in the vote.
I do tend to agree that *seconding* an already-proposed option that
one doesn't intend to rank high is less justifiable than proposing
such an option.
\ “Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who |
`\ speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” —Ambrose |
_o__) Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |