Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Clarification of voting rules

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Clarification of voting rules


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org>
  • To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Clarification of voting rules
  • Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:34:40 +0100

I think this misses the point a bit.

If a proposer is allowed to implement their own voting system, they can implement one that they think will favour their preferred outcome. There are cases in which no voting system is objectively the best, so the only thing that I think we can all fully agree on is a simple ratification with a majority of the vote. This prevents anything against the wishes of the members happening. That's how most bodies similar to OpenNIC function, anyway.

albino

On 21/07/18 01:29, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
Over 50% i think is already in place, we decided that a while ago when we
voted on Jonah's proposals.

I support your idea of "a tie would result in the status quo being
preserved." but forcing yea/nay for every situation is inefficient and long. (I
mentioned choosing a replacement for .free as one of those situations.)

Perhaps yea/nay should be assumed in all cases unless the voting process is
described in the proposal.

--

-Dan Q

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:23:02 +0100, Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:

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

--------
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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page