Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
> > That's where we address things like "what's the point"?
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, the discussion period is intended to be finite, it's not
> supposed to be used as a filibuster.
I never suggested that it was.
And, in fact, it's the Secretary who gets to say when the
discussion period is over, precisely because it might
involve a judgment call.
> If his answer to "what's the point?" is nothing more involved than
> "because I want it to be known where the developership stands on the
> question I proposed", and he gets the requisite seconds, isn't it
> better to call the vote rather than discussing interminably?
Who cares? Why do you ask? How does this question have
any relevance?
[a] he hasn't gotten the requisite number of seconds,
[b] other people posting, ostensibly in favor of his proposals seem to
think there is some other point,
[c] some of these other people might very well have other
proposals to offer.
So, amusing as it might be to consider, there's more going on here than
Andrew wants a vote.
> Particularly when voting on a resolution which appears to be toothless
> by design?
NO!
That's the really bad part of Andrew's proposal.
While our voting system is fairly resilient to insincere voting, no
voting system can be completely immune -- for example, consider what
happens when a majority of the votes are insincere. And, if the ballot
options themselves are insincere, that encourages insincere voting.
--
Raul
Reply to: