Discuss mailing list

[Sebastian Makowiecki <soocki AT mailbox.org>]

Jonah would you care to explain the 'inconsistencies' brought up? If you were to count the first round votes what would be the outcome?

The IRV voting method seems fair and useful solution in some cases and I don't understand the reason to replace it with mandatory "y/n" style of voting always, forever, period. Did you think this through? In case of the ongoing multiple choice kind of vote in question how would you propose to solve it and why didn't you (or did you?) speak aloud before the voting has started?

Is it the first time 'confusion' and 'misleading' are brought up? What exactly is confusing and/or misleading? A lot of people voted (including you Jonah) and it is the first time those objections are brought up, unless I am unaware of something.

Would you care to elaborate on the subject instead of simply throwing out the idea of 'cancelling the other vote in motion and never allow similar voting in the future'. It would certainly help to explain your harsh position on the subject.

~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 31 July 2018 06:24:18 GMT+01:00, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

Additionally, "misleading" is a personal attack and a slanderous accusation of deceitfulness on my part. OpenNIC should not be proposing votes with language designed to slander specific members.

I set the second round to begin in two days so the vote must go on, and again the only reason I did is was because of the complaints of other people.

Also, you must specifically name the proposal(s) to repeal.

--

-Dan Q


On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:32:52 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT opennic.org> wrote:

It’s fixed now, thanks. Although debatably it isn’t far from reality, and the core team without a doubt exists.

Jonah

On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:27 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

I have no objection to you acting in accordance with policies. Personally the only reason I did this was because *other* people were complaining, and I thought I'd take advantage of it due to my vote on the original. But "Jonah Aragon, OpenNIC Core Team" is trolling at best and deceitful at worst.

--

-Dan Q

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:15:41 -0500, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT opennic.org> wrote:

Obviously this proposal will proceed in accordance with existing policies.

Jonah

On Jul 30, 2018, at 11:08 PM, Daniel Quintiliani <danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

Bullshit. The exact language of the proposal is given here:

https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00126.html

I am sick and tired of you thinking who the fuck you are. You have no more authority than the rest of us. If you wish to go ahead with your proposal, you must follow the 7-day rule which you yourself wrote and we approved.

--

-Dan Q

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:05:03 -0500, Jonah Aragon, OpenNIC Core Team <jonah AT opennic.org> wrote:

Hello,

I would like to invalidate the results of Daniel Q’s previous vote, which was counted in a manner inconsistent with normal “instant runoff voting” procedure. As he won’t permit a sane recount by other community members including myself, the vote and all future related votes being conducted with the same voting procedure should be considered misleading and invalid.

Furthermore, I’d like to mandate that all votes in the future should be a simple “Aye/Yes” vs “Nay/No” style of voting, to avoid any such confusion again.

This proposal will be voted on as soon as legally permissible.

Jonah


--------
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