On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 12:22 +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > No. I'll thank you to get better at spotting jokes. I expect there are > others who agree with aj's text on some points and adeodato's on another. > I'd like to have a way to resolve that conflict without it being a choice > between voting for text one doesn't support and voting for spending time > on further discussion of this. Can we resolve it by balloting by section? > Then a full range of views can be used to pick a compromise. > > Offering many versions of a controversial policy seems reasonably common > in advice about Condorcet voting. For example, online: > "Voters have a real choice only when offered competing versions of a > policy. Not just a tax, yes or no, but several versions of the tax can > and should be offered." -- http://accuratedemocracy.com/l_intro.htm > > Lately, debian votes tend to offer a few polarised alternatives, > bundling different decisions together. I'm asking whether we can find > a better resolution this time, without running several GRs.
I wholeheartedly support the goal. By introducing a separate GR proposal, I was chasing this same goal of providing real choice to the voters. Alas, I'm afraid the suggestion you made (the example of how to ballot by section) was not easy enough to understand for many. In particular, it took some time for me to understand how to combine the sections -- I didn't realise at first that the combinations were provided at the bottom of the text. It might be easier to have the full text of each option visible. Could you generate the actual combinations and provide them as separate files? We could then propose them as amendments to Anthony's proposal. Thanks, -- Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
