Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
Adeodato Simó <email@example.com> writes:
> * Ben Finney [Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:43:44 +1100]:
> > Don Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you
> > > don't plan on ranking first.
(Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that you
don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
> > 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?
> I can't believe I'm reading this.
I think perhaps you're reading more into it than I wrote.
> You should not write options you are not going to rank first,
> because the people who do care about that option winning should get
> to decide what's the wording that reflects their complete opinion
> and concerns.
The people who do care about such an option winning have at least as
much freedom to decide as they did before the option was proposed.
They can decide whether they want to propose their own wording, or to
second the wording as already proposed, or anything else.
\ “I'm having amnesia and déjà vu at the same time. I feel like |
`\ I've forgotten this before sometime.” —Steven Wright |