Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
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?
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?
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.
There is also a somewhat more strategic reason why you may want to
propose or second an amendment for vote: the more extremist options have
less of a chance to actually win the vote; when your option is perceived
to be the most extremist one on the ballot, you may want to second or
propose another option that is even more extremist, so that yours won't
look as bad, and will have a chance of getting more votes. This kind of
behaviour is not the kind of behaviour that I would like to see from my
fellow developers, but
- I don't think it's actually happening; and
- Raising the bar wrt seconds will make this much harder, anyway.
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22