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

Re: [Amendment] Reaffirm current requirements for GR sponsoring

Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is
>> minimum support for an opinion.
> It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of
> support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote.  Many voters
> don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in
> detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage
> that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text.

Are you promoting the practice of voting by "I haven't got a clue what 
this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote 
for that" here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder 
rather than facilitating it.
IMHO the only thing that's important is _that_ a proposal got sufficient 
seconds, not _who_ seconded it. (Of course the secretary should be able 
to show this, but that's covered.)

However, there are variations possible. For example:
- during the period before the vote opens: register all seconds, but only
  publish whether or not the number required has been reached;
- when the vote is opened: list the complete list of seconders as now.

That would still help get cleaner discussion threads and reduces any 
skewing of the vote by a group of DDs boosting a particular option by all 
sending in their seconds at that point.

Personally I really do find otherwise empty seconds on the list 
distracting. I'd much rather see people actually contributing to the 
discussion by explaining their rationale and keep the seconds separate.

Reply to: