On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 15:33:29 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In the recent "Disambiguation of 4.1.5" vote, for instance, while I > haven't look at the tally sheet yet to see if anyone actually did, I > would have to wonder if anyone who ranked "further discussion" above > any of the other options was voting sincerely.
Personally, I thought B was the only sane choice both constitutionally and administratively. I preferred it avove all else because it was the least ambigious and introduced the least change to the constitution. I felt and still feel that the Foundation Document class is an awful idea, that introduces a beurocratic complexity that our project does not need. Options A and C contained the red tape I wanted to avoid at all costs. I voted 3142, but in hindsight, I should not have given preference to A over C. I suspected that A would win, so perhaps I should have ranked C over A or avoided ranking either of them. I should have voted -1-2. There definitely is a strategy to our voting method. Every rank counts for something. Because someone deploys a strategy to their voting choices does not mean they vote insincerely. I'm sincerely disappointed in the outcome of the last GR, but I support the method in which it was conducted. If we can prove that the system has flaws, then let's fix them, or at least minimize the problems through procedure. -- Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
pgpwY0s0rGAN7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
