Scripsit Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:07:13PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > [###] Choice A: Postpone changes until September 2004 [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice B: Postpone changes until Sarge releases [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice C: Add apology to Social Contract [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice D: Revert to old wording of SC [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice E: "Transition Guide" foundation document [needs 3:1]
> > [###] Choice X: Further discussion
> Is the "Choice A: " bit required? I suspect people won't be swayed by
> knowing which letter of the alphabet identifies their choice,
I *think* the vote-tallying software needs it. Every ballot since 2000
that I could find in the debian-devel-announce archives has had
similar bits on each line. (Actually the identifiers are usually
digits rather than letters; the letters here may eventually be
replaced by numbers).
In any case, I think there should be a simple unambigous link between
each ballot line and the actual text of the proposal being voted on.
The short descriptions alone won't do; if voters have to cross-refence
by eye to find the proposal headlined "postpone changes until mumble",
there's a risk that they'll get the wrong mumble.
> As far as the description for B goes, I'm satisfied.
OK. I'd be interested in your opinion on the other descriptions too.
I am trying to prevent not only
"Gah! My favorite proposal lost because its description
was misleading"
but also
"Gah! My favorite proposal lost because the description for the
winner distracted voter attention from its more sinister aspects".
If I can get each proposer's explicit opinion that neither of these
are going on, we will have some amount of protection against that kind
of flamewars afterwards.
--
Henning Makholm "Jeg mener, at der eksisterer et hemmeligt
selskab med forgreninger i hele verden, som
arbejder i det skjulte for at udsprede det rygte at
der eksisterer en verdensomspændende sammensværgelse."
