Discuss mailing list

[Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org>]

Good evening,


On Thu, 2017-12-28 at 23:27 -0500, gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:
> This is an invalid voting option, and since your vote has suddenly
> become an actually and absolutely crucial part of the decision of this
> proposal, I'm going to provide you the opportunity to cast a valid
> ballot since you submitted yours before tally.
> 
> I'm deeply invested in the success of this vote, and I hope I can have
> your support in making this proposal a reality.

I'm very confused by this reply.

On the website[0] OpenNIC asks "Looking for an open and democratic
alternative DNS root?". Sadly I fail to see a democratic process in this
voting thread. In fact, based my understanding of a democratic election
as I explain below, I fail to see the validity of this vote. Therefore I
can not by any means vote for or against any of the possible options. If
I would I would acknowledge the voting. And that would go counter to my
understand of democracy, OpenNIC, and my own conscience.

I meditated about what to do and came to the conclusion that vetoing
again would not the way to go. Also fully aware that any veto, such as I
did in "[VOTING] New TLD .RUS"[1], it both formally and informally
outside of any of my powers.

So I cam to the conclusion that my only option would be to cast an
invalid vote. It was the only option left for me to actively show that I
can not support any of the given options. Invalid votes are a core
component of free elections.


At the begin of my email I wrote that I'm confused by your reply. I want
to explain to you why. There are three main aspects.

      * First, you as the petitioner directly ask me, a voter, to change
        my opinion based on the fact that you don't like it. This is
        direct interference with the process while the election is open,
        at least in your opinion, see my next point for this. This
        alone, in my personal opinion, renders the election invalid.

      * Second, you set end time of the election period to "2017-12-29
        00:00"[2]. Your reply arrived at Thu, 28 Dec 2017 23:27:02
        -0500, which is Fri, 29 Dec 2017 04:27:02 +0000, therefore
        outside of the election period. I'm strongly against changing
        cast votes inside the election period, however outside of it is
        a strong no-go.

      * Third, I see no legitimacy in you, the petitioner, to "provide"
        any changes in the election process. If at all that is purely
        the power of the election supervisor. And in any free, open, and
        democratic election those two roles can not be united in a
        single entity.

In addition, I would also like to express my plain incomprehension of
the amount of pressure you put on me here.

Therefore I can not do different then to keep my invalid vote up.

Above I said I would like to explain you my understanding of a
democratic election process. This surely is incomplete, still I would
like to outline some very important points.

      * In a democratic election process there must not be any kind of
        joined powers. That is each role must be implemented by a
        independent entity. I already explained that for the petitioner,
        and the supervisor. Another role would be people that watch and
        verify the process.

      * Election needs to have a clearly given election period.

      * At no event there must be interaction from the petitioner with
        the voters that can change the opinions. I may accept a *pure*
        word of thankfulness if it is the *same* for all voters. I *may*
        accept a clear and direct answer to a clear and direct question.

      * Any non-anonymous election is not a free one. This is as there
        always is group dynamic and pressure by the parties as
        represented in the options that are up for vote.

      * Any election must be within a given set of of options. Those
        options must be clear and must be within the same domain and
        dimension of action. (E.g. "Do you want an apple or a kiwi?" is
        within the same domain and dimension. "Do you want an apple or
        is the sky blue?" is not.)

      * Invalid votes must be handled as they are. They are not the same
        as negative votes.

      * It must be clear what the conditions are to pass an option. E.g.
        "more than half of the votes", "with most votes", and "a minimum
        of" are good constructs that help here.

      * If a election does not adhere ANY of the regulations that are
        defined it is invalid. Anyone, including bystanders, must have
        the power to declare the election as invalid at this point. The
        election process musst be stopped then. A summery like the
        summery for the completed election should be published to
        document this.

      * The case of an election to fail for any reason should be
        defined. At least it must be defined if and under which
        conditions election on the same topic may be re-opened.
        Personally I would suggest to enforce a waiting period at least
        twice the total length of the election period as a minimum. This
        helps to make sure votes for the failed and for the new election
        aren't mixed. In case of OpenNIC I would also suggest a "open a
        new thread"-clause.

Some of those rules are implemented and documented for OpenNIC[3]. As
you was told by Mr. Aragon[4], you failed at least some of them.
Therefore I can not see validity in this election.

I would also like to note that the last vote for "YES"[5] sadly missed
the election period.

I hope this e-mail is of help to you. Also I really hope that OpenNIC is
making some more process in this area of operation.

With best regards,


[0] https://www.opennic.org/
[1] <1506587123.1900.201.camel AT lion.leolix.org>,
    Thu, 28 Sep 2017 08:25:23 +0000
[2] <62acb3754f870d09698688934d8be425 AT tfwno.gf>,
    Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:15:34 -0500
[3] https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/mailinglistpolicies
[4]
<CAMcWD6yUOFBfnNUuXAiRLMWcpUDh306SLZ=cA7kgADLAKCFgiQ AT mail.gmail.com>,
    Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:19:13 +0000
[5] <5A45CA42.5050209 AT gmail.com>,
    Thu, 28 Dec 2017 22:53:22 -0600

> On 2017-12-28 16:26, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> > Good evening,
> > 
> > I vote RANDOM.
> > 
> > With best regards,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2017-12-21 at 11:18 -0500, gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:
> >> With no further comments made and the date now way past the
> intended
> >> start of the vote, I hereby move to put the establishment of the 
> >> .front
> >> TLD to vote as-is, with no further amendments to our charter or 
> >> details
> >> of intended operation.


-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)