Hello Wouter, On Mon 29 Nov 2021 at 10:34PM +02, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > You may of course do so, but I think it creates a system that > incorporates the worst of both worlds. My proposed system allows one to > extend the time at all time (while making it progressively harder as > time goes on), because I believe it is better to have a system that > allows that flexibility when necessary than to have a system with a > rigid, unchangeable limit. > > If you *do* prefer that limit, then I think it makes more sense to have > a system like Russ's, where time is extended when a ballot option is > added, but not past your time limit. His system is procedurally much > simpler than mine, but has the downside that it creates what I think is > an unacceptable hard limit. If you believe three weeks is too short, > might it not be better to propose a system like Russ's, but with the > hard limit at four weeks rather than three? > > I don't really like the procedural complexity that my system creates, > but I think that disadvantage outweighs the disadvantage that the rigid > limit in Russ's proposal creates. Belated thank you for your feedback. No-one else has spoken up in a way which suggests they'd second my proposal, so I'm not going to pursue it. If Russ's proposal is the one we end up adopting, one possibility is that we have another GR simply to increase the limits a bit, after we've had some experience working within the new procedure. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature