Discuss mailing list

[gitgud AT tfwno.gf]

If it were just the failed TLD vote, I wouldn't have felt it necessary
to write a lengthy tract on the whole thing. The way the .front vote 
progressed is
just an indication of the dysfunction, and I wouldn't even have 
dedicated
further time to expressing myself regarding this if there weren't others 
that
felt the same.

I presently have no plans to further endeavor towards this vote's 
passage.
It is my firm belief that the issue lies not with the proposal itself,
but the present way the affairs of this organization are conducted,
and of existing biases that exist among members of the community that
are unlikely to change with even the most impassioned and well written
appeal.

While it might be possible to propose this top level domain if the 
organization
changes substantially in the future, I do not believe any revision of 
this
proposal could pass without the betrayal of its purpose or of the 
liberties
which we intend to grant registrants.

On 2017-12-31 19:10, Christopher wrote:
> I'm sorry to hear you have lost all enthusiasm for OpenNIC after one
> failed TLD vote. If that's not true and you still have some, perhaps
> take into account the reasons people have voted against it, enhancing
> the proposal, and trying again; making sure to follow all current
> rules on discussion and voting. Otherwise best of luck in your future
> endeavors.
>
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 6:25 PM,  <gitgud AT tfwno.gf> wrote:
> > As is probably obvious by now, with the vote for .front concluded, the
> > resolution
> > to approve .front as a top level domain has failed. In a tally of 14 
> > YES -
> > 14 NO,
> > the motion has failed to achieve a simple majority of support in the 
> > mailing
> > list.
> >
> > There's a lot to get into, but to start, I will fully admit that I 
> > have been
> > less
> > than stringent about the "official procedure" of this vote. As it 
> > stands,
> > the voting
> > rules in place are nebulous, lack comprehensiveness, and leave a lot 
> > of
> > responsibility
> > to the person who puts forward the proposal. This is nobody's fault, 
> > as not
> > much has
> > actually come through the mailing list in a while, but is likely an
> > oversight that will
> > need to be addressed in the future. If I took liberties during the
> > proceedings,
> > it is because I found them necessary to take and the members of the
> > community I talked
> > with were largely comfortable with me doing so.
> >
> > There was a certain point in this vote when I asked one voter, Philipp
> > Schafft, to clarify
> > an invalid vote he had cast during this vote. Philipp, a Tier One 
> > operator
> > and key member of
> > the organization, used the opportunity to step onto a soap box and 
> > claim
> > that his actions and
> > his right to them were a pillar of democratic values that must not be
> > infringed, and that my
> > request that he "fix" his vote was an assault on these values. That
> > everything I had done was
> > invalid and undemocratic, and that I had in some way violated the 
> > sacred
> > "democracy" of OpenNIC.
> >
> > On a vote as contentious as .front's has been, I wagered that Philipp 
> > would
> > perhaps want the opportunity
> > to think and respond more critically on the vote than he had, 
> > especially
> > with his considerable position
> > in the organization. In whatever misguided way I figured the decision
> > validated the request, I was
> > trying to be polite and give him an opportunity he might have taken 
> > for
> > granted earlier in the vote at
> > our proverbial round table.
> >
> > OpenNIC is not a state, but an organization. Perhaps in a democracy 
> > that
> > governs a nation and not
> > servers, Philipp would have a point about "freedom of speech", the
> > importance of his ability
> > to cast an inane vote, and the required inflexibility of the rules in 
> > place.
> > But this isn't a parliament
> > or a state house, but a mailing list for an alternative DNS. More
> > importantly, this is an organization
> > where flexibility is not just the norm, but an outright sanity measure 
> > that
> > makes working on this project
> > bearable.
> >
> > Meanwhile, despite a lengthy comment period of over a months, few of 
> > the
> > users that participated in
> > the vote ever commented or suggested amendment to the proposal, simply
> > showing up to voice their
> > disapproval of this addition to the proposal. Some in the IRC had not 
> > even
> > read the proposal,
> > and were under the impression that the proposal had nothing to do with 
> > its
> > stated objective.
> > Admittedly, this is their right; still, I can't help but regard a lot 
> > of the
> > opposition and
> > even a lot of the support as "arbitrary" since it was afforded scarce
> > attention before the vote
> > began.
> >
> > So with that vote chucked in the bin, the whole .front resolution 
> > fails to
> > pass. I'm sure Philipp will
> > take issue with the fact that I included a vote cast shortly after the
> > stated end of the ballot in the tally,
> > but to the credit of that person, his vote was an intelligible 
> > response and
> > at this stage, the ultimate and
> > final result of the vote remains unchanged. After months of ramblings 
> > about
> > unbreakable Malbolge encrypted
> > domain names, talk of establishing top level domains for trademarked 
> > video
> > game brands, and a completely
> > stalled effort towards establishing or at least adopting a Certificate
> > Authority, I had imagined that the
> > .front proposal backed by members of the already proven team 
> > administrating
> > the .chan top level domain would
> > be a breath of fresh air.
> >
> > I was wrong.
> >
> > I don't know what I'll do from here. But I do know that I no longer 
> > have the
> > enthusiasm I did for this project
> > or the hope that I will be able to accomplish anything meaningful as a
> > member of it. I feel like I've wasted my
> > time and effort contributing to it, and that I've wasted the time of 
> > others
> > in encouraging others to do the same.
> > It was a considerable endeavor undertaken by verax and Pathore to 
> > write and
> > deploy an entirely new registration system
> > capable of supporting registration across multiple TLDs including 
> > .chan, and
> > as of present, I do not feel confident that
> > their time was well spent.
> >
> > That's it.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing 
> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org