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

Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 07:32:57PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Since "STFU about it" (or "none of the above") would not be binding, I don't
> see how that differs from "further discussion" (which, AFAICS, is not binding
> either).

well, if NOTA beat FD then any attempt to revive the discussion within, say,
the next two years could be met with demands to STFU.  pointless, perhaps, but
possibly satisfying.

> If you want *some* resolution other than further discussion, and don't care
> which, then voting "112" would probably work--not expressing a preference
> between choices 1 and 2, but preferring those over 3.  Note that that does
> contribute to the 3:1 supermajority needed to pass choice 1.

the closest match to what i want is "-12" (which is how i voted).

i would have preferred to be able to vote for NOTA before FD because i really
don't want any further discussion (i'm sick of the whole subject)....however, i
don't want my vote to place choice 1 at the same preference level as choice 3
(i.e. i want choice 1 even less than i want choice 3), so i couldn't just
ignore choice 3.

what bothers me is that the anti- non-free bigots will use reluctant FD votes
like mine as an excuse to continue this tedious "debate".  that's what a NOTA
option would have been good for preventing - bogus claims of a mandate for
further discussion.


Reply to: