Santiago Ruano Rincón dijo [Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:15:40PM -0300]: > > > I second adding this version to the vote > > > > I'm getting a bad signature on this. > > > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 at 00:22, Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Second version, taking into account feedback. Looking for seconds at > > > this point: > > > > Maybe Santiago wants to adopt this text, rather than having 2 options? > > The initial proposal was made collectively, and now I realise I should > have signed with a "On behalf of the Debian fellows in Montevideo". So > it is not only me to decide. > > Anyway, IMHO, it is good to have more than one option.
As one of the seconders --- I know it's up to Santiago to formally
adopt or reject the modification to the text he submitted, but yes,
this text was the result of –at least– a couple of hours of us working
collectively over a text drafted by Ilu. It will surely have some
English non-native weirdnesses, as highlighted by Wookey; I'm willing
to adopt Wookey's suggestions, as they don't change tone or meaning.
As for Luca's proposed version, it _is_ a worthy proposal, and I'll
surely vote it above "Further Discussion". But it strongly changes the
tone used. I'm happier with the original version. I believe this
highlights the strength of Condorcet-based voting systems. If Santiago
were to adopt the new text, we might get a situation –as happened in
vote 2016-002 leading to 2016-004– where the "softer" version does not
get the traction, where the original, "raw" version does.
Thanks!
- Gunnar.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
