Discuss mailing list

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

Actually "by actor" would not be needed (and an easy way around things) if it 
was limited to literally identical text (as described below)

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:14:20 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> "By actor" is good, and all three examples I gave were by actor.
> 
> You're right, it's best to only limit it to literally identical text, 
> rather than try and cover subject matter in general. This way "let's do the 
> .front vote again" or "let's vote on proposals B and D [exactly as they are 
> written] again" would be covered by this policy while "I'll make a new 
> proposal with a revised B and D" would not.
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:02:01 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Just some thoughts I had... 
> > 
> > What differentiates proposals? Is it by idea? If I hate an idea could I 
> > start a vote on it with some outlandish conclusion people would be forced 
> > to vote “no” on, and now nobody can propose anything like it for a year? 
> > For example, I could start a vote saying that if a proposal fails, nobody 
> > can start another one for 1000 years. Once everybody says no, is a “1 
> > year wait before re-voting” proposal disallowed because it’s a different 
> > take on the same idea?
> > 
> > Is it by actor? What’s stopping me from giving my failed proposal plus a 
> > few modifications to a buddy of mine to propose?
> > 
> > Is it some combination of the two that determines uniqueness? If so, 
> > who’s the judge of that? This could be used as a heavy handed tool to 
> > prevent proposals by a single person or across a very wide scope of 
> > ideas, because they’re “too similar.”
> > 
> > When we make proposals it’s important to codify things exactly, in my 
> > opinion. Sure, maybe a “reasonable judgement”-based idea like this might 
> > work within our current community, but we should consider new users or a 
> > potential rapid growth of our community that could destabilize an 
> > organization like ours with “policies” like this. 
> > 
> > Jonah
> > 
> > > On Jul 9, 2018, at 1:28 PM, 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
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org