Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 05:27:26PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:17:28AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > (Don has, after subsequent argument, modified this to “… that
> > > you don't plan on ranking above Further Discussion”.)
> > Bad, bad idea! What if you are planning to rank "Further Discussion"
> > as 1, but staill have a compromise you'd be willing to accept that
> > you think is _far_ better than anything _else_ that's been proposed?
> If you're willing to accept a compromise, you rank it above further
> discussion. The very point of ranking FD above an option is to
> indicate that you don't find a specific option an acceptable solution
> at all, and would rather have futher discussion than accepting it.
I still don't see any reason why someone shouldn't be able to propose
an option they find less unacceptable than the options already on the
table. Just because you don't want any of them doesn't mean that you
can't think some options are worse than others.
I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
can't accept compromise.
And how are we going to police this nonsense? Check the votes
afterwards and sanction someone if they proposed or seconded an option
and then didn't support it with their vote? That's just stupid. In
fact, the whole notion of restricting options is stupid. If we're
going to go to the trouble of having a vote, we owe it to ourselves to
make sure that the right options are all available.
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
email@example.com | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or firstname.lastname@example.org | volcaniconi- standalone haiku