Discuss mailing list

[<vv AT cgs.pw>]

How come one week is not on there?

~ Ole


On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:32:29 -0400 (EDT)
"Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> 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  
> 
>