Re: Draft: Proposal Alternative: Traning data is not source code

Agreed.

On Thu, 8 May 2025 at 17:52, Sam Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>     Stefano> Either way, having a single option would certainly be
>     Stefano> better than having two, in terms of reaching the needed
>     Stefano> quorum for an alternative option to be on the
>     Stefano> ballot. (Assuming you two are fine with "merging" the
>     Stefano> proposals, of course.)
>
> I don't see this at all.
> I don't see anyone stepping forward and saying they would sponsor a
> merged proposal but not one of the existing proposals.
> I've sponsored Aigars's proposal.  I don't think he likes my option
> enough to sponsor it.
> I would encourage you to sponsor his proposal if you have not done so.
>
> I think our voting system deals well with ballot options, so I've never
> bought into the desire to minimize ballot options.
> I'm absolutely happy to work with Aigars to minimize differences between
> our proposals and to highlight those differences, not out of a desire to
> get a single merged proposal, but out of a desire to be clear what we
> are voting for.
>