Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

I don't think the problems encountered in this particular
vote stem from our methodology, although I do agree that
it could be improved.

We are a dysfunctional organization however. If you had
made your proposal a few months back, it would likely have
passed just because other people would have been voting,
and/or the "no" voters would have been busy. It is mostly
a matter of luck as to which proposals pass. How to change
this, I don't know, but I doubt that a revamping of our
voting system will be enough.

~ Ole


On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 19:28:18 -0500
gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:

> 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