1. Voting
Hello all
I'm about to post the questions I propose for voting on one set of issues. I
wanted to state what I have done so it is transparent, and to give an idea of
issues. When I post the questions, I won't be inviting comment, just voting. If
you disagree with my choices, you have the full range of democratic choices - you
can run your own poll, vote against any stupid selection I made, or sack me for
any future voting process. (Obviously, if I put a proposal incorrectly, someone
who supported it in the original thread should put me right). No decision I make
can have an adverse effect on Euphoria because nothing will be adopted unless a
majority support it.
While wading through posts, I became more convinced than ever that presenting a
couple of alternatives is best, because when you examine the detail of the
threads, many contributors don't go to the specifics, and often issues are
intermingled and confused. Also, it is obvious there is a significant number of
people who have strong feelings about certain issues who didn't contribute to the
threads, so there's a silent majority out there who could have different views
from everyone who posted.
My criterion was to choose 2 alternatives that might conceivably get a majority
vote. That isn't a judgment on the value of other alternatives - just my view of
reality. I also tried to choose alternatives that represented different schools
of thought, so that they present genuine alternatives.
The way the questions are asked is also thorny. Responding to something Rob said
about deciding in principle, I have tried to frame the questions with sufficient
precision that a developer could take away the result and plausibly write the
code without needing his hand held. Inevitably, that attempt will fail, but I
wanted the vote to be decisive to some extent. I don't think general "principle"
gains much from a vote. I realise that Rob probably didn't intend "in principle"
to mean that but I just wanted to make clear it's not what I tried to do.
The first range of questions will be posted shortly. The vote will be open as
long as it seems fruitful. If someone wants to debate the merits of the
proposals, post a separate thread for the discussion and simply post to the
voting thread that you want some more time. I'll allow whatever time it takes.
But I'm not really interested in debating wordings of questions and the like.
This is decision time and you have a full array of democratic options if you
don't like the process.
Cheers
Peter Robinson
2. Re: Voting
Peter Robinson wrote:
<snip>
> Also, it is obvious there is a significant number of people who
> have strong feelings about certain issues who didn't contribute to the
> threads,
> so there's a silent majority out there who could have different views from
> everyone
> who posted.
Everyone is free to post her/his opinion. If someone does not do so,
then we cannot know her/his opinion. That's just life.
Generally speaking, a problem might be the speed of some discussions.
If someone goes on holidays for say 14 days without looking on EUforum,
then it might happen that there will be made some decisions without
her/him. That's not actually democratic.
<snip>
> The first range of questions will be posted shortly. The vote will be open as
> long as it seems fruitful. If someone wants to debate the merits of the
> proposals,
> post a separate thread for the discussion and simply post to the voting thread
> that you want some more time.
I think it would be good to offer that explicitely as an answering
option, along with another on. So I'd like to suggest to provide for all
answers the following additional options:
- I don't care.
- I want more information/discussion.
> I'll allow whatever time it takes.
OK, then the problem that I mentioned above does not apply here.
> But I'm not
> really interested in debating wordings of questions and the like. This is
> decision
> time and you have a full array of democratic options if you don't like the
> process.
Regards,
Juergen
