Re: [VOTE][RFC] Safe Casting Functions

On Nov 26, 2014, at 17:24, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote: >> On 26 Nov 2014, at 23:00, Rowan Collins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So far only 15 people have voted, that’s very low for this kind of RFC. >>> >>> I’m tempted to extend voting for another week. It’s not likely to >>> change the outcome, but it would hopefully mean more people vote. >> I don't know if it would make a difference here, but I wonder if it would be sensible >> to add an "abstain" option in votes? That way, someone who has considered an RFC but not >> formed a strong opinion either way could register that fact. This could even be paired with the >> notion of a "quorum", i.e. a minimum vote count demonstrating that the outcome of the vote >> is not the accidental result of "missing" votes, say because several people happened to be >> on holiday or busy. > That sounds like a very good idea to me, I, for one, would be happy if this was implemented. A very strong +1 here. It would also give a stronger sense of how many people are actually looking at voting on RFCs in general. I would certainly have felt better casting abstain on several RFCs that’ve recently gone by than with the vote I actually cast (though I stand by my votes in all cases regardless), usually because of lack of strong knowledge of the subject matter. -- Gwynne Raskind