[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:31:45 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> said: 

> On Nov 1, 2003, at 22:32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> Ah, but there is a paradox: Consensus on one of the options does
>>> exist. The option just got dropped (failed n:1 requirements) due
>>> to people wanting another option, too. That is, I think, a
>>> technical
>> How the hell would it get dropped if people actually had a
>> consensus and wanted it?

> Given two orthogonal options, A and B, with a 3:1 requirement, and
> the default option C:

	Why are they not in seperate votes, which would be the proper
 procedure? If they are orthogonal, procedurally they should have a
 separate discussion period, ballot, and vote.

> I hope this makes my concern clearer.

	Not really.

"And I don't like doing silly things (except on purpose)." --Larry
Wall in <1992Jul3.191825.14435@netlabs.com>
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: