Discuss mailing list

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

Meaning if there were options A-H, and the surviving options for the second 
round were A-D and H, but B did not show up in the first place results 
despite getting votes, would we repeat the A-D+H round again or move on to 
A,C,D,H? 

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:58:57 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> A question though - do we really need to repeat votes in the case that 
> Option A has 2 votes and Option B has 1 vote if none of them made first 
> place during that round? If so, January would be a better choice than 
> February for the policy to go into effect. 
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:53:42 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
> <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> 
> > I think so too. There was another person who didn't vote but mentioned 
> > they didn't think it was fair. So if every round consists of 8 "no 
> > changes" and 3 rotating remaining other choices, the consistent "no 
> > changes" votes will still win in the end. But I do agree with some other 
> > users that this is a more fair way to have done the vote.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > -Dan Q
> > 
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:36:49 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > For what it’s worth, it doesn’t look like instant-runoff voting would 
> > > have affected the results whatsoever, since “no” had over 50% of the 
> > > *total* votes. Unless perhaps some “no” voters only voted that way due 
> > > to peer pressure and truly wanted to vote for a less popular choice? 
> > > Seems unlikely though. 
> > > 
> > > Just saying, when you reintroduce this, don’t expect drastically 
> > > different results, based on this evidence. 
> > > 
> > > Jonah
> > > 
> > > > On Jul 20, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Vote results:
> > > > 
> > > > B (9 months):
> > > > 
> > > > Daniel Quintiliani
> > > > 
> > > > D (3 months):
> > > > 
> > > > Jacob Bachmeyer
> > > > Mikhail Elias
> > > > 
> > > > E (1 month):
> > > > 
> > > > Ole Juul (vvande)
> > > > Rouben
> > > > 
> > > > F (I vote against this change in policy.):
> > > > 
> > > > Jonah Aragon
> > > > Grant Baron
> > > > Christopher
> > > > Fusl
> > > > Jon Hebb
> > > > Megan Parat
> > > > Jack Ternan
> > > > 
> > > > No votes for A or C.
> > > > 
> > > > Protest/invalid:
> > > > 
> > > > Sebastian Makowiecki
> > > > Philipp Schafft
> > > > Al Beano
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > As no changes in policy have been made, per discussion on Discord and 
> > > > comments
> > > > on the mailing list, I will reintroduce the proposal with instant 
> > > > runoff voting.
> > > > Discussion thread to come.
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > -Dan Q
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 20:05:47 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
> > > >> <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:
> > > >> 
> > > >> Beginning: July 14, 2018, 00:00 UTC
> > > >> Ending: July 21, 2018, 00:00 UTC
> > > >> 
> > > >> Original discussion thread (note: the title does not reflect the 
> > > >> proposal, as different ideas were proposed during discussion): 
> > > >> https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00024.html
> > > >> 
> > > >> -----
> > > >> 
> > > >> Previously failed proposals to create OpenNIC TLDs, and all 
> > > >> identical duplicates of proposals which have failed to pass, shall 
> > > >> not be introduced for another:
> > > >> 
> > > >> (A) 12 months
> > > >> (B) 9 months
> > > >> (C) 6 months
> > > >> (D) 3 months
> > > >> (E) 1 month
> > > >> (F) I vote against this change in policy.
> > > >> 
> > > >> This proposal, if passed, shall take effect on September 1, 2018, at 
> > > >> 00:00 UTC.
> > > >> 
> > > >> -----
> > > >> 
> > > >> My vote is for B (9 months).
> > > >> 
> > > >> --
> > > >> 
> > > >> -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