Discuss mailing list

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

Jonah, would you mind if when I introduced this, I did not include #3 or #4 
and changed the title to "[VOTE] Invalidate previous vote"? It seems that 
OpenNIC people are divided on yea/nay right now, while it's important to get 
rid of the confusion over those two votes which, according to instant runoff 
voting, technically did pass with 1 week, even though we were all confused. 
You can then introduce #4 (which implies #3) as a separate proposal 
afterward. Sound OK?

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:35:22 +0200, Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:

> This is still stupid, reactionary and unnecessary.
> 
> Like, there's never been a major issue with any kind of voting before, 
> and why'd you ban a decent system just because of one poor implementation?
> 
> Also, why do you feel like it's necessary to "nullify" a vote that has 
> not passed anyway?
> 
> If anything, there should be a requirement where a *final* vote has to 
> be a yes/no (as in, implement or do not implement), but there should be 
> no restriction on previous discussion or non-final votes. Voting in 
> general is a pretty good mechanism to gauge interest and opinions.
> 
> 
> On 01.08.2018 21:29, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> > Per our discussion in this and other threads about proposals vs. personal 
> > attacks and allegations of fraud, I would like to propose the following 
> > alternative which does not mention my name or include such allegations 
> > and attacks:
> >
> > Subject: [VOTE] Invalidate previous vote; eliminate other forms of voting
> >
> > 1. The proposal entitled "Reintroduction of past proposals", including 
> > all associated votes, (re)counts, and results, is declared null and void.
> > 2. The proposal entitled "Reintroduction of past proposals, IR, R1", 
> > including all associated votes, (re)counts, and results, is declared null 
> > and void.
> > 3. The method in which the votes for the above proposals were counted are 
> > hereby declared invalid for the above two proposals and shall not be used 
> > for future proposals.
> > 4. All votes in the future should be a simple “Aye/Yes” vs “Nay/No” style 
> > of voting.
> >
> > This vote shall be done in "Aye/Yes" and "Nay/No" style.
> >
> > These rules shall take effect two days after the votes have been counted 
> > and the results have been published to the mailing list.
> >
> > ^^ I think it takes care of the actual procedural end of things without 
> > accusations or personal attacks against myself. Jonah, will you accept 
> > this for the vote, or do you have changes to suggest?
> >
> > --
> >
> > -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