Discuss mailing list

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

Here is a proposed draft (note how I readded suggested months, and how I 
changed to January, as February is a bit too far):

--

The first round:

Vote up to 8 times in order of preference. In each round, an option may be 
chosen only once. The option with the least number of votes shall be removed 
from the upcoming round. All items with 0 votes shall be removed from the 
upcoming round.

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) 8 months
(D) 6 months
(E) 4 months
(F) 3 months
(G) 1 month
(H) I vote against this change in policy.

This proposal, if passed, shall take effect on January 1, 2019, at 00:00 UTC.

--

The second round, in the example of three options are removed, will be:

Vote up to 5 times in order of preference. In each round, an option may be 
chosen only once. The option with the least number of votes shall be removed 
from the upcoming round.

--

When there are only two options left:

Please vote only once from the following two options:

--

-Dan Q

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> A number of people were unhappy with the recent vote on reintroduction of
> proposals. Many had proposals such as multiple rounds of voting, which were 
> very confusing. I attempted to simplify things by taking only multiples of 3
> up to 12, 1 month, and no change. There were also two protest votes by 
> people
> who wanted other amounts of months and were not willing to compromise.
> 
> In major elections in my country, you start out with many choices between
> candidates, who drop out until one candidate from each party remains, and 
> then
> one wins the election. The only exception to that is in the extremely rare 
> case
> when a third-party candidate is relevant. Third party candidates serve no 
> purpose but to (1) encourage the major party canidates to adopt their views 
> and/or (2) split the vote and help the other side win.
> 
> I assumed that with this vote, people would rally behind a single option as
> time went on. This did not happen, as angry voters cast protest votes
> such as "C->D 4 months" and "<invalid>"
> 
> Shortly after I put the issue to vote, I was discussing with vvande and 
> others
> on Discord a European style of voting called "instant runoff voting" in 
> which
> there's less of a need to compromise. In this case, one votes for as many of
> the options as they choose, in order of preference. There are multiple 
> rounds
> of voting in this case, in which the each round would remove the last place
> option, until only one option remains. If any option has zero votes in a
> round, they would also be removed.
> 
> Votes are then counted in this manner:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IRV_counting_flowchart.svg 
> 
> I didn't want to tamper with the election so I stayed quiet until it ended,
> with plans to reintroduce with instant runoff voting if no changes were 
> made. 
> 
> So as no changes have been made, I will use this same vote, instant-runoff
> voting, this time with 4 and 8 months added back to the choices, and with 
> the 
> effective date pushed ahead to February 2019. The initial vote will start 
> on 
> the 24th and last through the 31st.
> 
> In addition to the original proposal, we have had proposals such as
> .free/.libre/.liber/etc which were not limited to yea/nay. Thus unless the 
> .free
> vote and others are illegitimate, there is nothing prohibiting instant 
> runoff voting, and this 
> proposal can be brought to a vote.
> 
> Any comments before the voting starts should go in this thread.
> 
> --
> 
> -Dan Q
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org