On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:38:36PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > Sam Hartman wrote: > >Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of > >more discussion? > I think that, under the proposal as made, this is correct. Yes. > When this has been brought up in the past, I believe that it has been > recommended that a reject/status-quo amendment be proposed by someone > who wants to reject the GR (and gets it seconded) as a way of getting a > "reject" option on the ballot. Yes. If there are going to be more people voting to reject the proposal than accept it, this should not be a difficulty. It also forces you to be clear on what, exactly, it means to reject the proposal. For example, we might have a vote at some point along the lines of "The developers resolve to allow modifications to the social contract with a 2:1 supermajority". If that vote doesn't pass, it'll remain unclear what we can do to modify the social contract -- is a simple majority vote enough, or can it not be changed at all? People are quite happy to argue each way. Which is to say a "No." option has no meaning, but specific counter proposals are entirely reasonable. In Usenet votes there is (or was, last I looked) a cabal that votes No on every ballot to ensure that there really is enough support for a new group to warrant its creation. If you want, you can always start up a little cabal that works out what form a "rejection" should take, and propose and second it. I don't think that's something that can be properly done mechanically or by the secretary, though. IMHO, etc. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature