Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > I would suppose that the logical alternative for those who wanted many
> > is lets start with few if many is not possible [today]
> > and not either many or nothing
> 
> And I would suppose that the logical alternative for those who
> wanted few is lets start with many if few is not possible [today]
> and not either few or nothing.
> 
> I'd be wrong, of course, and I submit that you're wrong, too.
> Christopher

Dunno... I think that minimum common denominators are a good thing.
If *I* want "few" and are approached with either "many" or "none", *I'd* be
scared that "many" would affect stability, and would therefore choose
"none". (The reason I would want "few" might precisely be because I'm scared
about stability anyway!).
If *I* want "many", and am faced with either "few" or "none", *I'd* choose
"few", because it's closer to what I want than none... (unless of course I'm
into a sour grapes type of game of the type "can't have it ALL, so sod the
lot!").
Just for the record, I'd want MANY (many being probably something between
200-2000, though for others, that might mean not many at all). I'd be happy
to start with "few"... Stands a better chance of evolving into "many" than
deciding "none".

Yours, John Broomfield.