On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:43:30PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad 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?
Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? Sometimes there is more than one.
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.
Most of the time, even Phase 1 consists of "+1"
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.
Requiring both sides to argue their point does not change that.
This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, and is damaging to a fair and reasonable process.
You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere I wish to go back to. rgds, Sascha Luck