On Sat May 02 18:48, Charles Plessy wrote: > [I lost the option 3] As many people have spotted, there was no option 3
> I think that it was a good idea (and a lot of work, thank you for that) to > prepare options that reflect the different opinion expressed in the previous > discussion, but I would recommend that each of them should be sponsored > separately, so that there is a chance to reduce the complexity of the ballot > if > some do not manage to attract enough sponsors. Well, I was trying mainly to reduce mails. People should certainly be able to second options independently, I hope kurt will allow people to reply to the whole mail seconding only subsets of the ballot. > The biggest problem of the “Lenny release” vote – in my opinion – was the > mixture of supermajority and simple majority options. I am tempted to propose > another option, that would change the constitution so that supermajority > applies to whole votes and is decided at the beginning of the process. In > short: I think this is quite a good idea, but I think orthogonal to the items in this ballot. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
