Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009, Chris Waters wrote:
> 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.
You can easily propose and/or second an option that reaffirms the
status quo if you think the matter should be settled completely. If
not enough people second it, then the status quo isn't acceptable to
enough people in the project for it to be a viable option.
> So, if it's harder to add options, people are more likely to vote
> for choices they really don't like. (I know that I have.)
The idea is to make it more difficult to add options so that options
that have no chance of winning are not added. Secondarily, it's to try
to get people to spend more time in the deliberation stage to perfect
the options and achieve compromise before an option ends up on the
ballot.
Ideally this will mean that we'll have options that represent large
parts of the project, with compromises that are acceptable to all of
the project, with no options that are only acceptable to small parts
of the project.
Don Armstrong
--
The attackers hadn't simply robbed the bank. They had carried off
everything portable, including the security cameras, the carpets, the
chairs, and the light and plumbing fixtures. The conspirators had
deliberately punished the bank, for reasons best known to themselves,
or to their unknown controllers. They had superglued doors and
shattered windows, severed power and communications cables, poured
stinking toxins into the wallspaces, and concreted all of the sinks
and drains. In eight minutes, sixty people had ruined the building so
thoroughly that it had to be condemned and later demolished.
-- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p4
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: