On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 10:21:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > N.B., I would object to having any ballot options on the same GR > > that consist of this same draft with point #4 stricken, because > > assuming rational voters I would expect the voters who approve of > > that option to be a strict superset of those who approve of my > > proposal, and I would call on the Project Secretary to exercise his > > authority to keep these two proposals on separate ballots to avoid > > prejudicing the outcome in favor of a "watered down" option. > Speaking with my secretary hat on, it seems to me that options > 3 and 4 are somewhat orthogonal -- inasmuch that it appears eminently > reasonable for someone to have differing opinions on these two > options. So people may approve of 3, and disapprove of 4: and this > makes me think that they do not belong on the same ballot, since they > are unrelated wrt to voting (though obviously addressing related > areas) I agree that points 3 and 4 are potentially orthogonal, but I believe I have the right under the constitution to ask for the project to vote on a resolution that includes both of these points. If someone were to bring an amendment that eliminates point 4 while leaving the rest of the resolution intact and unchanged, those two ballot options would have orthogonal elements, and I would ask that they be treated on separate ballots so that voters have the opportunity to vote on this position statement per se without having to compete with ballot options that remove one of the axes of content. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature