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

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

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 04:18:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 1: I'd be happier, though, if those proposing and seconding options
> > would be more careful about the effects that their options may have,
> > and be more vigilant about withdrawing options when more palletable
> > options exist. You should not be proposing or seconding an option that
> > you don't plan on ranking first.
> Anthony Towns seconded his own recall vote, as DPL. Do you think he
> should not have done that?

He voted 21 (FD over recall), so no. Of coure, that option had more
than 5 othere seconds, each of whom voted 12, so it didn't do anything
to cause us to vote on an option that we wouldn't of had a need to
vote on otherwise. Since 48 people voted 12, the K (or Q, 1.5Q or 2Q)
seconds could have easily come from them.

> I seconded both proposal B and proposal D on 2004_004, and did not
> rank both equally at number one (rather, I voted proposal B at 1,
> and proposal D at 2). Do you think I should not have done that?

That's fine, since you ranked them both highly. There's a benefit to
seconding options which represent compromises that you support.
There's no benefit to seconding options which you do not, just to see
them go down in flames in the election. [If an option cannot get the
required number of seconders from people who actually support it, it's
almost assuredly going down in flames in the election.]

> In general, I believe it is okay to second a ballot option that you
> do not plan to rank first if you feel it is an important matter that
> you want to see resolved. The statement "I second this proposal"
> only means "I want to see this voted on", not "I support this
> statement", and I think that's a good thing.

I disagree. We shouldn't be having votes or options on the ballot
purely for the sake of having votes or options on the ballot. Our
voting process exists to resolve conflicts in a manner that DDs
support; having options that DDs do not support on the ballot does not
help that process.

I view seconding as a trial run for a particular option involving a
smaller number of people who vouch their support for that option so
that the entire project does not have to be involved in dealing with
options that do not have wide enough support to even have a chance of
winning. Making the seconding process more difficult by increasing the
number of seconds and trying to avoid seconding options that we
ourselves do not support will help keep the project at large from
wasting time reading and understanding ballot options that are not
widely supported.

Don Armstrong

"There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the    
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself."
 -- Bach 

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: