Re: Wording (was Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output)
> On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:08:01AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Raul Miller writes ("Re: md5sum <FILE produces spurious ` -' in output"):
> > > I do wish we has a better way of saying "request (or require [if we have
> > > sufficient supermajority])".
> > Perhaps we should just write `require' in draft resolutions, with the
> > understanding that if they pass but not with the necessary
> > supermajority the word `require' will be replaced with `request'.
> >
> > Or invent a new word like `requesquire' to serve as a placeholder, to
> > be substituted after the vote :-).
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:42:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> You could do two resolutions:
I think the simplest thing to do is use a unique phrase (require by
itself, if the word isn't used in any other way in the document) with a
rider that states that the require phrase gets replaced with a request
phrase if a sufficient supermajority isn't obtined.
Of course, if someone thinks there is merit to requesting but not
requiring, we can still have distinct ballot options for the two cases.
In most cases, however, the only significance to this issue is that we
want to avoid arguments about what it was we decided. [Let's instead
leave people with some energy to argue about the merits of what we
decided.]
--
Raul
Reply to: