On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 12:04:38AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 11:10:45PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > > > > I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General > > > > Resolution. > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better to separate the editorial changes from the > > > conceptual changes and vote on two orthogonal proposals? > > > > > > Apart from this, I think your proposal looks good. > > Thanks for your support, but I did consider what you propose, and I > > disagree. > > I am not planning to do that because our voting mechanism has no means > > of declaring two winners. It is easy for me to imagine that both > > proposals would pass by the required majority, but the editorial-only > > one would be the Condorcet winner because it would garner more votes > > (presumably because it would be less controversial). > Just make it two separate votes. One for the editorial changes, which > everyone should agree one mostly, and then the second about the > conceptual changes. > Or maybe a single vote with an option with only the editorial changes, > and another with the conceptual changes + the editorial changes. Actually, I disagree with one of the editorial changes (on-line -> online), but I haven't found any semantic changes in the proposal that I think I disagree with. I haven't decided yet if I care about the editorial change enough to vote against the GR. ;P -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpSBOcqIxpJk.pgp
Description: PGP signature