Discuss mailing list

[Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org>]

I would question the methodology used in these cases, but yes, we have 
to be pragmatic so I would only want to alter the rules 
for***upcoming*proposals.

albino

On 21/07/18 01:17, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> If you wish to do this, this would apply to FUTURE proposals...otherwise 
> several past votes
> are illegitimate (such as .libre/.free)
>
> --
>
> -Dan Q
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:15:38 +0100, Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:
>
> > Recent events suggest that we should clarify a set of voting rules.
> >
> > My view is that all proposals submitted to the ML (or DokuWiki as the
> > case may be) should be subject so a simple yes/no vote, and pass with a
> > majority over 50%. A tie would result in the status quo being preserved.
> > No other options would be allowed.
> >
> > This system means that all proposals that pass have the full support of
> > the majority of voters. Proposals with more complex implementation
> > details (e.g. the current one re "Reintroduction of past proposals") can
> > be formed however the person writing them wants - including by gathering
> > the thoughts of members using the ML or other means - but they bear no
> > weight until ratified by a simple majority of members.
> >
> > albino
> >
> >
> > --------
> > 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