Discuss mailing list

[Sebastian Makowiecki <soocki AT mailbox.org>]

I suppose it just makes sense that failed proposals should not be repeated too soon. A 'no' means 'no' (and a 'yes' means 'yes'), not 'perhaps in the near future'. Some cooldown period would ensure that same proposals cannot be suggested too frequently.

I can see how to some a period of a year or even 8 months can be quite too long for some (especially in today's world). I suppose a shorter period would make more sense, where there is a grace period after each proposal, yet also the "Great Project of OpenNIC" remains reformable.

I'd like to change my suggestion to 4 months of 'cool-down' period (I previosly suggested 8 months).

~ Sebastian Makowiecki

On Tue, 10 Jul, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

As with the voting procedures proposed by Jonah, half of which were voted into official OpenNIC policy, a fixed waiting period between duplicate proposals will ensure integrity and stability. -- -Dan Q On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 21:44:07 -0700, <vv AT cgs.pw> wrote:

I should have added in my last email: To whom does this make a difference? ~ Ole On Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:28:48 -0400 (EDT) "Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote: > Hi, > > There has been a problem of people trying to hold new > votes too recently after their proposals lose. This > includes Jonah's proposals to replace IRC with Discord > and Sympa with Discourse, and someone who lost I think > the .front TLD, and I did so myself with the .free/.libre > thing. > > I propose there be a one year (365 day) waiting period > before anyone can bring proposals back up for a new vote. > > What do you think? > > -- > > -Dan Q -------- 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