Hi, On 22/11/14 at 12:35 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:29:40AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Considering only 2*, if we were to vote today, my vote would probably be: > > 2-R > 2-R' > 2-S > 2 > FD > > I'm assuming your vote would be: > > 2 > 2-S > 2-R' > 2-R > FD > > This is hard to reconcile. > [...] > > But I don't think that a ballot with several options is necessarily > > very bad, as our voting system handles those cases just fine. > > > > What we should focus on is ensuring that it remains easy for everybody > > to understand and rank the various options. > > Yes, that is the issue. What you propose (summaries with pro/cons) is of > course a solution, but it requires quite a bit of work. And even if we > do that work, the decision about how to vote would be more complex for > DDs in comparison with a more straightforward yes/no ballot. And all > this is, IMO, for relatively little gain, as we are essentially > bikeshedding on minutiae at this point. > > Given that: > > - 2-S seems to be some sort of middle ground among the first choices in > the hypothetical votes you proposed above (and in fact it was proposed > by AJ precisely as a mediation among them) > > - 2-S seems to have received only positive reactions on this list > > would you refrain from proposing 2-R as an amendment if 2-S were to be > the initial GR proposal? If so, I'd be happy to do the same for 2, and > we can have a simple yes/no ballot. > > I.e., can we agree on 2-S as a mediation and simplify voting for > everyone? > > For reference, I'm attaching the current version of the 2-S GR text. > I'm still waiting to see if people object to that idea, but the only > remaining change I'd like to apply to that proposal is to remove the > transitional measure, on the basis of the fact that we've already had > quite a bit of churn in the CTTE due to recent events. This negociation about the content of the ballot feels quite wrong to me. Our voting system is designed to handle this case just fine, and the only drawback is that it makes the voting slightly more complex because project members have to compare two options, and not just approve/disapprove one -- but I think that voters can handle this additional complexity just fine. I think that you should propose the option you consider best; I will propose 2-R, because I still have a strong preference for that option compared to 2-S, 2-R' or 2. However, as I am not sure if it's just me, or if there's wider support for 2-R, I will ask the secretary to not automatically accept the amendment (as an amendment from the DPL), but instead require it to reach the usual number of sponsors. I will also explicitely state that it should only be sponsored if one prefers that version to the original proposal. That way, either it will have sufficient support to prove that it's worth having a more complex ballot, or it won't be on the ballot. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature