On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:09:41 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:42:31AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:54:38 -0600, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > The best answer, thus, is probably to remove the entire
>> > construct, since it is easily confusing and prone to argument,
>> > and replace it with a simpler and more easily construed one, such
>> > as "The voting mechanism cannot currently handle encrypted
>> > ballots; if you encrypt your ballot, it will be rejected."
>>
>> The replacement text you propose does not convey the same meaning
>> as the original did; and trying to convey the nuances in less
>> precise speech would make the construct cumbersome. ("shall not" is
>> a more emphatic term, and the "cannot currently handle" implies
>> intent that is not correct).
> Then I submit that your meaning is not, in fact, clear to a
> significant portion of the only audience that makes sense for this
> to be addressed to (that being 'Debian Developers', those who can
> cast votes).
If people cannot understand:
"Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
able to decrypt your message."
they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.
manoj
--
Maj. Bloodnok: Seagoon, you're a coward! Seagoon: Only in the holiday
season. Maj. Bloodnok: Ah, another Noel Coward!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
