Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
Agreed on that.
> I could see someone drafting them as an option for someone else who
> planned on ranking them highly to actually propose and second.
Fine. Your original statement denied this possibility, which was all I
wanted to address.
> > 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
It's this implicit binding of “the proposer doesn't support the
option” with “(almost) no-one actually supports the option” that I
find unneccessary and overly restrictive. It seems you agree, but your
terminology suggests otherwise.
\ “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending |
`\ the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the |
_o__) hopes of its children.” —Dwight Eisenhower, 1953-04-16 |