On Sat Jan 10 15:51, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jan 2009, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > How do you define "relevant"? The vote is run because someome proposed a > > > GR and X others have seconded it. They are relevant, it happened due to > > > them. Now as a voter I want to know their motivation and would like to > > > have a link to mail where they explain it. > > > > Would you rather have one explanation by the proponent or thirty > > explanations by the 3Q seconders ? I don't understand why you seem to > > want the latter. > > It's not "or", it's "and". I want the explanation of the proponent and the > point of view of seconders. They might second not because they agree but > because they want to see the option on the ballot. Or they might prefer > something else but be satisfied with this as a compromise. It seems to me that at the moment that for the average DD who doesn't follow -vote, when a vote comes up they currently either have the single short paragraph on the web page about an option, or reams of -vote archives, both of which seem suboptimal if you have a limited amount of time to spend familiarizing yourself with the issue (and who doesn't have limited time). I don't think that having another place with reams to read (M seconds, proposer and anyone else who fancies it) improves the matter a lot. I think Ian is trying to provide a middle ground where people can explain a bit more justification for the options than on the vote page while not also overloading the average voter. By all means have pages such as you describe (and planet seems to do that quite well atm) but I think Ian's suggestion of an easy to find, fairly short bit of 'extra explanation' which is intentionally limited is size has a lot of merit. It doesn't replace the -vote thread and everyone's opinions, it's for people who don't have time to read that much, but do want to have a bit more insight. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature