Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:12:17AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: >> Getting seconds is not a vote. It's a low-level check that there is >> minimum support for an opinion. > > It's also the most reliable way for a developer to issue a statement of > support that will be seen by voters prior to the vote. Many voters > don't follow debian-vote and won't follow the pro/con discussions in > detail, but the debian-devel-announce mail links to the vote.d.o webpage > that lists all the seconds right next to the amendment text.
Are you promoting the practice of voting by "I haven't got a clue what this vote is about, but my friend X is supporting option C so I'll vote for that" here? I know it happens, but I'd prefer to make that harder rather than facilitating it. IMHO the only thing that's important is _that_ a proposal got sufficient seconds, not _who_ seconded it. (Of course the secretary should be able to show this, but that's covered.) However, there are variations possible. For example: - during the period before the vote opens: register all seconds, but only publish whether or not the number required has been reached; - when the vote is opened: list the complete list of seconders as now. That would still help get cleaner discussion threads and reduces any skewing of the vote by a group of DDs boosting a particular option by all sending in their seconds at that point. Personally I really do find otherwise empty seconds on the list distracting. I'd much rather see people actually contributing to the discussion by explaining their rationale and keep the seconds separate. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
