Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

[Raul Miller <moth@magenta.com>]

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:33:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I
> haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I
> would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above any
> of the other options was voting sincerely.
> 
> I say this because the issue had dragged on for three years, we had a
> healthy discussion period, and I don't recall that any other
> interpretations or clarifications were raised.  (I.e., there were no
> proposed amendments that didn't acquire sufficient seconds to appear on
> the ballot.)

If someone ranked "further discussion" above all other options, I'd
agree that that was probably an insincere vote.

However, I an easily understand someone thinking, "if this option doesn't
get choosen, I want to talk about why".

What I have trouble understanding is why you might classify that sort of
approach as insincere.  It's not as if we have some shortage of people
wanting to talk about things on our lists.  Nor is it the case that
there wouldn't be anything new to talk about.

-- 
Raul