Don Armstrong <d...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Ben Finney wrote: > > Another purpose, that I've seen recently a few times, is people > > proposing *several* discrete options for a ballot, carefully > > phrasing them to be distinct in order to clarify the meaning of > > the vote's result. > > If no one is going to rank those options highly, there's no purpose > in proposing them.
Agreed on that. > I could see someone drafting them as an option for someone else who > planned on ranking them highly to actually propose and second. Fine. Your original statement denied this possibility, which was all I wanted to address. > > According to Don's statement above, this is not a good reason to > > propose options. I disagree; I think it's commendable and in the > > spirit of his earlier statement (in the same message) to strive > > for clarity and precision in the ballot options. > > Options that (almost) no one actually supports don't increase > clarity. It's this implicit binding of “the proposer doesn't support the option” with “(almost) no-one actually supports the option” that I find unneccessary and overly restrictive. It seems you agree, but your terminology suggests otherwise. -- \ “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending | `\ the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the | _o__) hopes of its children.” —Dwight Eisenhower, 1953-04-16 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
