Re: Short descriptions of GR proposals on ballot
Scripsit Duncan Findlay <email@example.com>
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 05:57:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > (Rumor has it that we'll have a further proposal that explicitly
> > resolves to do nothing and let Sarge be delayed, but if so, it will
> > be easy to make that clear in the short description).
> Don't we already have that in the form of "Choice X: Further
That was my initial reaction too, but it is true only at the most
mechanical level. If "further discussion" wins, it could mean either
1. The majority of developers do not think there's a problem that
2. A majority of developers want to fix the problem, but the
majority is not large enough.
3. A 3:1 supermajority want to fix the problem in some way or
another, but they disagree internally about which of the
proposals is a good fix.
Our voting mechanism does not allow us to distinguish reliably betwen
(1) and (2)/(3). Therefore "further discussion" will equal a continued
flamewar. Andrew Suffield's proposal will let the matter be settled
conclusively if (1) turns out to be the case.
Henning Makholm "What the hedgehog sang is not evidence."