Re: Discussion: Possible GR: Enhance requirements for General Resolutions
On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 10:07:51PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Chris Waters said:
> > I am also offended at the suggestion that ranking FD highly means you
> > can't accept compromise.
> I'm sorry if you feel offended, but that's exactly what FD is supposed
> to mean. The only reason to vote FD is if you can't compromise on any
> of the options on the ballot.
Hogwash! If that's the case, we should simply discard any rankings on
a ballot below FD, AND we need to start offering an option for "I
prefer none of these, but would be willing to compromise." Because
not wanting any of the options, but still having (strong) opinions on
which are more and which are less desirable is still a valid
position--one I find myself in frequently IRL.
So, according to your view of voting, if I actually would prefer
further discussion (meaning that literally, and not with whatever
magical special meaning you think it has on a Debian ballot), but am
still willing to compromise and have opinions about which of the
options I don't like are better than others, what should I do? Not
express my honest opinion (that further discussion would be better)?
And possibly allow my very-least-favorite option to win through
inaction? That's ridiculous!
If I followed your suggestion about what it's "supposed to mean"
(according to whom, BTW?), I couldn't vote honestly--I would have to
vote strategically, supporting positions I don't support, unless I
gave up hope completely. Sorry, not going to happen.
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
firstname.lastname@example.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or email@example.com | volcaniconi- standalone haiku