Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Adeodato Simó <firstname.lastname@example.org> [090101 23:36]:
> > No. In my opinion, an option in the ballot is (should be) a very scarce
> > resource. Like you would in a situation of limited water supply in a
> > boat shared with friends, you should act responsibly and not consume one
> > unit unless painstakingly necessary.
> I massively disagree here.
Me too. In fact, I might go so far as to say that I couldn't possibly
[ 1 ] Harder to start GRs, but just as easy to add an option
[ 4 ] Harder to start GRs or add options
[ 3 ] "Further discussion"
[ 2 ] No. Just no. :)
Part of the problem is that we never have "no, just no" on our
ballots, so the only alternative is to vote "further discussion", even
if you have no interest whatsoever in any further discussion, and, as
far as you're concerned, the matter is settled.
The flip side of this is that people can be (I know I can be)
reluctant to vote "further discussion", because it feels like you're
voting "no, just no". So, if it's harder to add options, people are
more likely to vote for choices they really don't like. (I know that
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
email@example.com | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or firstname.lastname@example.org | volcaniconi- standalone haiku