Discuss mailing list

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

I am simplifying this a lot and creating a voting thread now. It is more 
narrow, consists of a single vote, and does not include the one year delay on 
revisiting this proposal.

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:29:48 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> Here is a draft idea:
> 
> Proposals for OpenNIC TLDs, and all identical proposals using the same 
> text, which have failed to pass, shall not be reintroduced for another:
> 
> * 1 year
> * 8 months
> * 6 months
> * Less than 6 months, as determined by a separate vote
> * No changes
> 
> This proposal, which shall not be reintroduced for at least 1 year, shall 
> take effect 1 month after the vote passes.
> 
> ^^If less than 6 months is chosen by membership, the separate vote would be:
> 
> Proposals for OpenNIC TLDs, and all identical proposals using the same 
> text, which have failed to pass, shall not be reintroduced for another:
> 
> * 4 months
> * 3 months
> * 1 month
> * No changes
> 
> This proposal, which shall not be reintroduced for at least 1 year, shall 
> take effect 1 month after the vote passes.
> 
> ^^is this way better?
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), "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
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org