From: Antony Stone <Antony.Stone_at_rockbox.open.source.it>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:37:07 +0200

On Saturday 09 October 2010 at 21:38, Paul Louden wrote:

> 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.

I agree.

I didn't mean that better arguments win the day - I meant that the better and
clearer the reasoning on one side or the other, the more likely it is that
other people will agree, and support that side (whether in favour or
against).

> 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).

Definitely.


Antony.

-- 
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but 
rather when there is nothing left to take away.
 - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
                                                     Please reply to the list;
                                                           please don't CC me.

Received on 2010-10-10