From: Paul Louden <paulthenerd_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:38:50 -0500

  On 10/9/2010 1:22 PM, Antony Stone wrote:
> Then if more people agree with the objection than agree with the
> feature being
> implemented, it gets abandoned. The clearer the argument for rejecting, and
> the better the reason/s, the more likely it is that the feature gets thrown
> out, just as the clearer and better the argument for including it, the more
> likely it is to be adopted.

The problem I see with "requiring good reasons" is that the people in
favor of the idea will nearly always say "your reasons aren't good
enough." People can support an idea without being challenged - nobody
can say "your reason for supporting this idea isn't good enough, so your
vote doesn't count." There should never be a mechanism in place where
somebody can decide a vote on either side doesn't count, as there is
nobody impartial who can make this decision.

Instead, it should be a simple, clean vote. Someone can always say "I'm
against it until this is cleared up" which creates an obvious goal which
will change their vote, but no vote should be dismissed simply because
other people don't see it that way and so write the vote off as not
counting (on either side).
Received on 2010-10-09