Ondřej Surý dijo [Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:06:09PM +0200]: > +1 to what Holder said. I believe it would be better to have this GR as > simple as possible. And get into multiple options later if FD wins even > this.
My reasoning is that FD already won once because there are some conflicting views on the details. That is, I guess nobod^Wvery few people will say the 2005 GR's implementation has not been a failure and should hold. We should move forward with something better. Something better might be "do not talk about it" (privacy expectations of -private was not explicit before 2005, so we go back to indetermination with my proposal). Ian Jackson's option tries to make it friendlier for future attempts. Iain Lane's option tries to make the privacy expectations as strong and explicit. I see value in having them all. Given the logic I understand on Condorcet, I'm sure that at least one of them will beat FD. And, given they are thematically linked and start from the same basis (and even given Ian and Iain's options "pull" towards opposite ends), they don't fundamentally contradict each other. The good will that Don Armstrong presented when proposing the amendment Nicolas accepted in the previous GR failed because some people objected the implications of privacy expectations being diminished. Quite probably, if the previous GR had taken place with both options instead of it completely replacing the original text, the original text would have won. Of course, that hypothesis of mine is completely ellucubrative, and will never be proved.
