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

Re: Proposed ballot for the GR: Deciding on the effect of GR 2004_003

On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:38:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:42:07 -0400, Duncan Findlay <duncf@debian.org> said: 
> > There is harm in reminding developers how to inform themselves
> > before voting??? You claim to want an "informed electorate" yet you
> > object to making it more obvious how to inform themselves?
> 	Shall I tell them to breathe in, breathe out, too? Or to
>  make sure they eat? Or remind them they should generally sleep,
>  perhaps once every 24 hours as well?

That's outside your portfolio as Secretary.

> 	If there are people who find this less clear:
> ======================================================================
> The details of the general resolution can be found at:
> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004
> ======================================================================
> 	Perhaps they should consider resigning.

Even if you add the ===='s, it stands out a lot more and is easier to
notice when skimming through the otherwise boilerplate ballot. I don't
see any reason to not implement Henning's suggestions. Sure, it is (or
at least should be?) a little unnecessary, but it's not going to hurt.
> > Furthermore, this may be a bias against new developers who are a
> > little unfamiliar with the way votes work. Are you trying to say
> > that their opinion is irrelevant? That they shouldn't get a vote?
> 	If they are not competent enough to follow the instructions
>  above, hell yes.

Do you read every word in everything ever put in front of you? Most of
the ballot is pretty standard, so people are likely to skip over
it. Making the link a little more obvious is a good thing.

> 	Bullshit. I am obligated to follow the constitution, and
>  decide, as do all developers, what is best for the
>  project. Pampering people who do not take time to do due diligence
>  before voting is not something I plan on doing.

Nobody said anything about pampering. We're talking about making a
link a little more obvious. How could that possibly be a bad thing?
> 	What fucking summaries? You really think that a 40 char title
>  is a bloody summary of a GR proposal? And you would vote on
>  something compressed into 40 chars? The mind boggles.

Personally, I wouldn't vote on a 40 character summary. But some might
find the titles sufficiently self-explanatory. I don't see how
encouraging people to read the full summaries is a bad thing.
> > link less visible is similar to an attempt to mislead voters into
> > thinking they are voting for something different than they really
> > are. (Sound familiar anyone?)
> 	Yes. Sounds like we are getting a lot of incompetent. lazy
>  people itching to blame everyone else for their lack of due
>  diligence.

Please, just make the link a little clearer and more obvious. Is that
really too much to ask? I assume by sending out a draft, you were
asking for suggestions on how to improve it (an incorrect
assumption?). People have responded, and you have proceeded to jump
all over these suggestions.

Duncan Findlay

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: