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 <aj@humbug.org.au> <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!''
Attachment:
pgp9YQ7muT7qT.pgp
Description: PGP signature