Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On 31/12/08 at 12:35 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Don Armstrong dijo [Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800]:
> > (...) You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
> (or high, as others have said in this thread)
> I am not sure about this... Sometimes you are interested in creating a
> rich enough set of options to get a fair spread of options to be voted
> on. Supporting/endorsing/seconding an option should not IMHO mean "I
> want this option to be ranked high", but "I believe this option should
> appear in the ballot" - Even if you don't personally agree with it.
I agree with that POV. GR are obviously a way to make decisions, but
they are also a way to get an idea about the general opinion of
developers. As such, it is sometimes useful to add options to the
ballot, when the meaning of "Further Discussion" can be intrepreted in
For example, in the recent "developer status" GR, we clearly needed an
option to say "I agree with those changes, and the way they were
announced", because, even for DAM, it was probably unclear whether FD
meant "please go ahead" or "let's just discuss this further".
Actually, this could be solved by allowing seconders to add a
one-sentence summary of the reasons why they seconded something. For
example, saying "I don't support that option, but I think that it should
be on the ballot". That rationale could be displayed on the vote page.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| email@example.com http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |