Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

I think we should just grow up and accept when we lose. I did just that with 
.libre, I said what I had to say, I lost, I moved on. Same with .front, I 
voted Yes, it was a tie, I lost. We shouldn't re-write the rules just because 
somebody lost.

--

-Dan Q

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:29:52 -0800, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:

> 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  
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org