Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net>]

I see. For some reason I was under the impression that this included very 
similar proposals as well. If it’s limited to identical proposals I don’t 
think I have an issue with it, at this time. 

Jonah

> On Jul 11, 2018, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org