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

Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> The ballot for the current proposals is shaping up to be rather
> complicated. There are currently 5 proposals, plus at least one
> in the making, plus "further discussion".
> In the interest of reducing the risk of somebody voting for something
> they did not intend to, simply out of confusion, I (meta)propose that
> the actual voting part of the ballot should contain ultra-short
> summaries of which option is which, rather than just "Option A:
> Steve Langasek's proposal" and so forth.
> This was discussed on IRC, and the project secretary agreed in
> principle but added that in order to stay strictly neutral he does not
> want to be involved in drafting the actual summaries. I therefore
> volunteered to write a first draft and try to gather a consensus about
> how the actual ballot should look.
> The ideal outcome would be that we find a set of summaries such that
> *each* proposer agrees that *all* the summaries are fair and neutral
> descriptions of the proposals they apply to. If such a consensus
> cannot be reached, we will probably have stick to using proposer's
> names instead of descriptions on the ballot, and everybody will lose.
> The following is my initial draft of a set of descriptions. It will
> surprise me if everybody is immediately happy with it, but at least it
> will give us a target to shoot at. I follow the enumeration of
> proposals used on <http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004>.
> [###] Choice A: Postpone changes until September 2004  [needs 3:1]
> [###] Choice B: Postpone changes until Sarge releases  [needs 3:1]
> [###] Choice C: Add apology to Social Contract         [needs 3:1]
> [###] Choice D: Revert to old wording of SC            [needs 3:1]
> [###] Choice E: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1]
> [###] Choice X: Further discussion
> The space for descriptions is rather limited - the vote-taking
> software wants each choice to fit on one line, and if the lines get
> longer than 72-73 characters, MUA's will begin to wrap them,
> invalidating the vote being sent. This implies an absolute maximum
> length of 45 characters for the short description.

Is the "Choice A: " bit required? I suspect people won't be swayed by
knowing which letter of the alphabet identifies their choice, and if
they are, I'm sure they can start at the top with A and work their way
down... Or we could truncate that to "A: ". Either way it'll free up
valuable space for descriptions.

As far as the description for B goes, I'm satisfied.

Duncan Findlay

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: