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

Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> You should not be proposing or seconding an option that you don't
> plan on ranking first.

I've thought a bit about it, and I think that there would be no
unpleasant side-effects; so I agree with it.

The case I considered is a recent one, where I sponsored [1] two more
direct explicit ballot choices (though in opposition one with the
other) than the only alternative choice that was previously
available. I did that because I thought voting on those two _instead_
of voting on the previous one was more telling.  But even in that case
I agree that even if I had seconded only the one that in fact I ranked
first in my ballot, someone else would have seconded the other. If
not, that choice could have been removed from the ballot doing no

Practically though, if yours proposal is agreed upon, I think we
should make explicit in the constitution that interpretation of
"seconds" ("sponsoring", using the constitutional term).  Currently
the constitution says nothing about why one should sponsor or not a
choice, hence it is open to both interpretations.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2008/11/msg00027.html

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: