[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:37:01PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>I think its best we end up with 2 options on the vote,
> 1) Increase requirements to 2Q [3:1]
> 2) Increase requirements to Q  [3:1]
> and also the usual Further Discussion, which would be for everyone who
> wants to keep the current state of 5 people. That, IMO, should fit
> everyone.

It seems to me it's a mistake to attribute to FD any meaning other than "let
the discussion continue".  If I prefer the current arrangement, I don't want to
vote for further discussion, I want to vote for *stop the discussion*.

If Further Discussion wins a vote which lacks an explicit status quo option,
how does one interpret it?  Clearly, none of the options were good enough, but
was the problem that people don't want to change or that people want to change
it to some other value not listed?

Hence, a third option "keep the requirement as it is" would probably be a good

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: