Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Ben Finney <email@example.com> writes:
> > Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> >> plan on ranking first.
> > This seems quite wrong. Why should one not carefully and precisely
> > phrase and propose an option that one does *not* agree with, in
> > order to get it voted on?
> Why vote on something no one actually wants?
I don't know. I didn't know anyone was asking for that to happen.
> If it's a viable option, it will get enough seconds in its own
I get the feeling you've excluded the middle between “propose an
option one does not plan on raking first”, and “propose an option
no-one wants on the ballot”.
> The only case where I could see it making sense to second options
> one personally doesn't support is if one believes for some reason
> that there is a huge disconnect between the people reading
> debian-vote and seconding proposals and the project as a whole, so
> huge that an option that would win in the larger vote doesn't have
> enough advocates reading debian-vote to get sufficient seconds. This
> seems unlikely to me.
Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people
proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully phrasing
them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of the vote's
According to Don's statement above, this is not a good reason to
propose options. I disagree; I think it's commendable and in the
spirit of his earlier statement (in the same message) to strive for
clarity and precision in the ballot options.
Further, there may be other reasons that both you and I haven't yet
thought of. I think it's unwise to say pre-emptively that those are
“should not” reasons also, merely because they're not options the
proposer plans to rank first.
\ “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their |
`\ home.” —Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital |
_o__) Equipment Corp., 1977 |