Yet again, someone posts a misunderstanding of Further Discussion to encourage more 2 and 3 preference votes for bad decisions. This time it's Raphael Hertzog. It could be insincerity, cluelessness, dislike of voting or something else motivating him and I don't mean to suggest any reason, but please don't rank FD below options that you dislike. Any compromise found from that insincere voting will not last long. Voting closes this weekend: if you have ranked FD below options you dislike, revote now if you want to find a real compromise. As you can find if you explore Jochen Voss's paper and references linked above this section on my blog page, the best way to get a good compromise decision is if there is a good spread of options. I don't think the three presented are a very high-granularity(?) range, so FD is the best outcome if we're really divided: try to get agreement again. If it goes to FD, I intend to propose a wide range of options after the DPL campaigns end (multiple votes being discussed at once are too much of a distraction, in my opinion).

I just started composing my FDL PS ballot paper. Obviously, I prefer the "1.2 doesn't follow DFSG in any combo" option, but I was again arguing with myself about how to rank the others relative to Further Discussion (FD, which I regard as "try again to get agreement" instruction). One thing I can't remember is whether ordering multiple options beneath FD has any useful effect. I browsed The Debian Voting System by Jochen Voss, but I seem to be too stupid to find the answer from it today. Looking at past tally sheets, it seems many people do order them, so probably I will too.