On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:45:32PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to
> > determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may
> > choose between John's original resolution, or the one I posted (or any
> > others that are proposed and seconded), and a second vote as to whether
> > the chosen resolution will be accepted. The constitution provides for
> > these two votes to be handled by the one ballot, so we may end up with
> > votes something like:
> >
> > [1] [Y] ABOLISH non-free
> > [3] [N] Create ADD-ONS
> > [4] [N] STATUS-QUO
> > [2] [ ] FURTHER dicussion
> >
> > (that is, a preference for the resolution to be ABOLISH, FURTHER, ADD-ONS,
> > STATUS-QUO, and only willing to back the resolution if it takes the form
> > of ABOLISH)
> The second column is implied by the first. I don't think both votes
> are necessary; anyone voting 1342 is clearly indicating that they
> prefer more discussion to either add-ons or status-quo.
It's possibly to prefer further discussion to the status-quo, but still be
willing to accept it if that's the form the resolution takes. Or to vote,
say: 3124 NYYN, say (as opposed to 3124 YYYN), with the implication that
you don't mind if abolishing non-free is the form the resolution takes,
but that you want to vote against it if it does.
Or that's how I read A.3, anyway. If there's no need for a final Y/N vote,
there's even less cause for complaint. *shrug*
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpgY8iTjkswy.pgp
Description: PGP signature