On Mon, 8 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I acknowledge your unhappiness with the process. Can you suggest
> improvements?
Yes.
How about a vote where the two options are:
* Compromise and go to B
* Carry on debating because I must have either A or C.
This allows people on either side of the A/C divide to agree
to a compromise arrangement without having to risk tactical
voting leading to (as in my case) a move from A to B letting
in C - which I absolutely cannot tolerate.
In my proposal, I can safely vote B and risk nothing. The
same applies to the C people who are prepared to compromise.
In the event of a tie we carry on debating.
I'm pretty sure the result of such a vote would be B - and
that it would be almost unanimous.
> | So a large company can pack the ballots with several hundred
> | people who havn't been listening to the discussion?
>
> If there were a serious problem with that, I'd go with the ARB
> approach (one vote per organization). However, in this context, we've
> typically seen different people in a given organization vote
> differently. (Brian Paul and I voted differently; Jon Leech and David
> Blythe voted differently; etc.) So I'm inclined to encourage everyone
> to vote unless there's compelling evidence that we need to do
> otherwise.
I have no objection to one vote per person *provided* that person has
been genuinely involved in the debate. I suggest one vote per person
subscribed to the list as of this instant.
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
L3Com/Link Simulation & Training (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
