On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:

Most proposals have some "rationale against" and
a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the
rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal".

But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with?

For a "+1", that's very easy: it's the proposal that was linked to.

For a "-1", they at the very least could point out what it is they think is wrong, and how.

Apparently, for these particular sock puppets, even copy+paste is beyond any effort they're willing to expend, and I believe that as much weight should be put on the side of those opinions: nearly none.

The "+1"s we see here hold an entirely different weight: they're support for a proposal that's ALREADY been through lenghty discussion process, with ample time to raise objections, influence the actual text, and so on.

In other proposals, this excellent process has resulted in not only better wording and in some cases significantly changed proposal texts, but also in the complete workover or even withdrawal of the proposal in question.

So I believe both sides should be required to argue their point.

This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, and is damaging to a fair and reasonable process.

Jan