On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:51:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:27:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Sure there is; people might legitimately want to vote: > > > > [ ] Change social contract, remove non-free > > [ ] Change social contract, don't remove non-free > > [ ] Don't change social contract, don't remove non-free > > [ ] Further Discussion > > I disagree that those who want to change the Social Contract as I have > proposed will necessarily have one position or another on keeping or > dropping non-free. The result of your proposed ballot is that those who > support my GR will be split among two ballot options, with the highly > likely consequence that the proposition will fail due to the 3:1 > majority required. > As Manoj's hypothetical ballot elsewhere in this thread illustrates, > having a "Change Social Contract, punt on removing non-free" makes this > even worse, because our voting system allows only winner and no > interpretive subdivision of the options. How does it make anything worse? It's my understanding that 'Change Social Contract, punt on removing non-free' is the intended meaning of the GR. AIUI, making this explicit and adding competing alternatives can only prejudice the original proposal if the success of that proposal depended on an ambiguous meaning. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature