-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org [mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of vv AT cgs.pw
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 9:22 PM
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] .front TLD
You've missed the results of the last few times that has been discussed. There are people here who make it quite clear that a mailing list is all they will accept and they will leave if we change that.
A forum needs to be maintained, which is a problem, I will be overrun with spam in a few days otherwise.
Personally I prefer and appreciate the benefits of a forum, but the general consensus is different here.
Also, the proposal and consequent test site, for a system that does a parallel forum and mailing list where users can chose one or both and not miss anything has recently failed miserably. I will also point out that we have a perfectly good forum that was set up the last time forums were discussed. I put a lot of effort into it at the beginning but many members boycott it. It's just not going to fly.
Sorry about the reality check. :)
Regards,
Ole
re new here. That discussion comes up frequently and you apparently have missed
On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 19:55:56 -0500
gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:
> The best thing that could happen is if we abandoned the mailing list
> completely. A forum could provide for better organization of threads,
> improved accessibility, the ability to pin and prioritize important
> conversations and announcements, and still provide a legacy interface
> for email updates on conversations that are opt-in rather than the
> baseline requirement of participating in governance decisions and
> staying up to date on internal affairs.
>
> On 2017-12-31 19:37, Rouben wrote:
> > I’m afraid I cannot comment on most of the items gitgud mentioned,
> > however, one thing I will agree on is the fact that mailing list
> > voting can be problematic.
> > Obviously, it has worked for years, however, it also has the
> > potential to become contentious in certain situations as we’ve all
> > seen.
> >
> > Therefore I want to float the following idea by the members of the
> > list...
> >
> > 1. We get a proper online voting system. I mean a proper system, not
> > something we can cobble together from existing code that does
> > something similar... I mean a mature, supported system.
> >
> > 2. I am personally in favour of going with a commercial system for
> > the following reasons:
> >
> > a) it will a third party system, not operated by any of our members,
> > and will therefore be “impartial” vs. if it was operated by an
> > OpenNIC member.
> >
> > b) a commercial system will most likely require some sort of
> > payment. This financial obligation should be fronted by those
> > calling the election as a sign of good faith that they are serious.
> >
> > I know of one we’d used at work for student council elections,
> > called simplyvoting.com [1] that charge per election $200US per 250
> > registered voters (how many members do we have?) There are countless
> > others, I am just providing an example.
> >
> > I am sure you’d be able to think of counterpoints to this. One I can
> > think of is that for some members, the voting system fees may not be
> > affordable for whatever reason... e.g. for residents of some Eastern
> > European countries $200 may be closer to one’s monthly salary and
> > therefore be completely unaffordable. Since OpenNIC is open to
> > everyone, this may be an obvious issue. Not sure how to solve it.
> >
> > 3. Finally, for the members that are more democratically purist, I
> > want to highlight that online voting itself is imperfect, and there
> > are good reasons why a lot of governments still use an old school
> > paper ballot system. This video covers the challenges:
> > https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI However, a dedicated, purpose built
> > online voting system is surely better than a mailing list (i.e. no
> > system at all).
> >
> > So I am curious on these 2 topics, in principle and in
> > practice:
> >
> > 1. What do you think of a dedicated voting system?
> >
> > 2. How do you feel about going with a commercial, third-party
> > operated system that the proposal initiators would need to
> > (potentially) pay for, say, per election?
> >
> > Rouben
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 18:26 <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
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rouben
> >
> > Links:
> > ------
> > [1] http://simplyvoting.com
> >
> >
> > --------
> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> > You may unsubscribe by emailing
> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
