Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>> A.2. Withdrawing ballot options:
>>
>> […]
>>
>> 4. The default option cannot be withdrawn.
> This is the most minor of near-useless pedantic comments on my part, but
> A.2.4 seems redundant: If only the proposer of a ballot option may
> withdraw it (A.2.1), and the default option has no proposer (A.1.7),
> then we don't really need a separate rule saying that the default cannot
> be withdrawn.
Yes, I completely agree there's no technical need for this. I included it
anyway because it felt like it added some clarity and meant that the
reader didn't have to chase the logic down through several other
provisions to be sure. There are a few other places like this in the text
(mostly around repeating phrases) where I erred on the side of clarity
rather than brevity.
I can certainly change this if people would prefer. It's possible that I
overcorrected for how tricky I find it to interpret the current wording.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: