Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> 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 result.
If no one is going to rank those options highly, there's no purpose in
proposing them. I could see someone drafting them as an option for
someone else who planned on ranking them highly to actually propose
> 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.
Options that (almost) no one actually supports don't increase clarity.
Our voting system isn't a survey of developers; it's a means of
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it.
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi