Re: RFD: informal proposal
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 04:58:27AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Nononononono. Please, not this again.
> There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people want
> to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental changes
> to ourselves with signficant dissent.
There are more than two issues involved here. However, you are
correct that those are two of the issues.
> The issues are utterly separate. Just because people mildly prefer one
> direction over another doesn't mean they're actually unhappy with that
> other direction.
That's fine, as far as it goes.
> > I'm not sure I agree. In this case, D would have been the default option:
> > further discussion. I imagine that, if this situation were to arise,
> > further discussion would be a good idea. [Why do so many people prefer
> > who prefer T over D also prefer D over S when so many other people prefer
> > S over T?]
> Because S is highly controversial, whereas T is generally acceptable.
What do you think of the idea of repeatedly re-using the votes with
supermajority and default swapped, after adopting an option with
supermajority, until the result stops changing?