Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 01:50:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I was about to tell you to define A, B, N, V, and (A,B) but I see you've
> > done it below. Please make this (c) --- put the definitions above their
> > use.
> Please explain why this is better?
Because people read through these things from top to bottom, and get a
little shock each time they see a word that doesn't make any sense from
the context they have, or at least, I do. It's irritating and distracting.
> If I adopt "define before use", does
> this mean I'm supposed to place the definitions above the sentences which
> use those definitions? Does the constitution need to be completely
> reorderd so that voting mechanics are defined before we discuss the
> contexts where voting is used?
There are two ways of doing things: either provide a general overview
first, then a detailed explanation later; or to define the details
first, then put them together later. The first is generally better,
since it makes it easier to skim the document for the important details,
but it only if you can give a meaningful overview without defining
the details. Saying ``To decide the matter, the membership vote'' is
fine, since you don't have to understand exactly how the vote is taken
(email? show of hands? Condorcet? plurality?) to get the gist of what's
going on. Saying ``Weakest defeats are eliminated'' isn't okay, since
you've got no idea what that means until "weakest defeats" is explained
to you.
> > > c. If a majority of n:1 is required for A, and B is the default
> > > option, N(B,A) is n. In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1.
(D is the default option; give people context cues so they don't have
to remember as much)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Australian Linux Lovefest Heads West''
-- linux.conf.au, Perth W.A., 22nd-25th January 2003
Reply to: