On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:36:09PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > "RATIONALE": Voters should rank the options they prefer in the
> > > > order that they prefer them, ranking the default option higher
> > > > than any options they believe are unacceptable. If they believe
> > > > the current situation is superior to any of the proposed changes,
> > > > they should propose or second an amendment that simply preserves
> > > > the status-quo, and only rank options they find unacceptable below
> > > > the default option.
> > > >
> > > s/amendment/option/ ?
> >
> > No, voters propose General Resolutions and amendments thereto, not
> > ballot options per se.
>
> It doesn't make much sense to add an amendment which states that nothing
> changes, i.e. that there's no amendment. ;-)
Yes, it does. See the flamewar about non-free on debian-devel. Giving
people their opportunity to explicitly express their preference for the
status quo (", damnit!") is a good thing, if someone can be bothered to
propose that as an amendment to the proposed GR, and if it acquires
enough seconds live on its own.
"FURTHER DISCUSSION" is not highly communicative. When ranked first, it
tells you relatively little about the voter's intent.
I am wondering if it is really a good idea to always have a do-nothing,
futher-discussion option that is the default. It may be better to make
these get proposed and seconded like any other option, and make them
have to fight for victory just like every other option.
If we retain a quorum requirement in terms of a minimum number of
ballots that have to be received before the result will be formally
tabulated, then "FURTHER DISCUSSION default options" are even less
necessary because people can just "indifference" a proposal to death.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
branden@debian.org | government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpNoStNePfQv.pgp
Description: PGP signature