On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:02:26 -0400, Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:38:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:42:07 -0400, Duncan Findlay >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> If there are people who find this less clear: >> ====================================================================== >> The details of the general resolution can be found at: >> http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 >> ====================================================================== >> Perhaps they should consider resigning. > Even if you add the ===='s, it stands out a lot more and is easier > to notice when skimming through the otherwise boilerplate ballot. That seems reasonable. > don't see any reason to not implement Henning's suggestions. Sure, > it is (or at least should be?) a little unnecessary, but it's not > going to hurt. The point is that you can't ever please every possible person. And there comes a time when the nit picking gets silly, as I think it has, in this case. >> > Furthermore, this may be a bias against new developers who are a >> > little unfamiliar with the way votes work. Are you trying to say >> > that their opinion is irrelevant? That they shouldn't get a vote? >> >> If they are not competent enough to follow the instructions above, >> hell yes. > Do you read every word in everything ever put in front of you? Most When it comes to a GR, yes. Note to the public: GR's are big deals. These are the most significant decisions that the developer community takes as a whole, and these can fundamentally change the very nature of the project. GR's that modify Foundation documents are even more critical; and you should not be skimming through the ballot. > of the ballot is pretty standard, so people are likely to skip over > it. Making the link a little more obvious is a good thing. And then they realize that they do not know what the ballot is all about, so they go back and read it. Really. > Nobody said anything about pampering. We're talking about making a > link a little more obvious. How could that possibly be a bad thing? Cause there will always be someone out there who wants a little bit more. A little more obvious. A little more spoon feeding. And when he material being spoon fed is not obvious enough, they have the gall to come back and call it "deceptive practice" and "delibratelyt misleading". >> What fucking summaries? You really think that a 40 char title is a >> bloody summary of a GR proposal? And you would vote on something >> compressed into 40 chars? The mind boggles. > Personally, I wouldn't vote on a 40 character summary. But some > might find the titles sufficiently self-explanatory. I don't see how > encouraging people to read the full summaries is a bad thing. I would rather trust in the sensibility of the developer body. You say you won't vote on a 40 char title, but you think so little of your fellow developers to believe they shall? >> > link less visible is similar to an attempt to mislead voters into >> > thinking they are voting for something different than they really >> > are. (Sound familiar anyone?) >> >> Yes. Sounds like we are getting a lot of incompetent. lazy people >> itching to blame everyone else for their lack of due diligence. > Please, just make the link a little clearer and more obvious. Is > that really too much to ask? I assume by sending out a draft, you > were asking for suggestions on how to improve it (an incorrect > assumption?). People have responded, and you have proceeded to jump > all over these suggestions. I listen to suggestion. I do not follow everyone. Adding gobs and gobs of disclaimers about the obvious is not, in my opinion, a reasonable suggestion. I may add a line of '='s around it, though. That did sound reasonable. manoj -- Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in. H.R. Haldeman Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
