Re: Poor wording of vote results
[I sent this accidentally to Chris privately, so I'm now posting a copy to
the list for continuity. I'm most definitely off to bed now.]
On 26 Jun 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
> Well, technically, I think it's the vote as a whole
Yes, of course.. I read it quickly the first time and missed that. When
I did figure out what it meant, it all made sense. Sort of. :>
With the definition you provided, none of my suggested changes make sense.
The current text could certainly be improved, however, as you point out:
> I *do* think it would be more clear if it said "This vote does not
> have a quorum, so FURTHER Discussion wins by default," or words to
> that effect.
Perhaps "Fewer developers than can make a quorum have been received, so
FURTHER Discussion wins by default." would be an acceptable statement. I
agree that "by default" is an important addition. I'd also like to see
the word quorum used in a way that a general understanding of the term is
sufficient to understand the statement, because there is certain to be
another tired developer trying to make sense of the result of a vote. :>
Thanks for your response.
--
William Ono <wmono@debian.org> PGP key: 0x93BA6AFD
fingerprint = E3 64 C5 43 3E B3 2D A6 C6 D7 E3 45 90 24 78 DE = fingerprint
PGP-encrypted mail welcome! "640k ought to be enough for everybody."
Reply to: