Discuss mailing list

[Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org>]

Good afternoon,

My vote is: No.

      * "words to that effect" ("2.", "3.") is not defined.
      * I do not see how "abstentions" can be counted. Maybe my
        dictionaries definition of "abstentions" needs update?
      * "5." is in contrast to "4.". While "4." suggest that votes
        beside yes and no are counted "5." cancels this effect.
      * "5." does attack the right to of spoiled votes.

I must also note that:
      * There has not been any discussion before this voting that is
        directly linked to it that I am aware of. Please provide
        reference.
      * Voting was called to start at "2018-08-16 16:00 UTC". This mail
        was sent Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:01:14 +0100 and hit OpenNIC's
        server (that does not mean it was processed in any way) on Thu,
        16 Aug 2018 16:01:07 UTC. The 7-day rule is violated.
      * Suggesting a formal process and by that breaking a one of the
        few rules there are is not exactly best example.


On Thu, 2018-08-16 at 17:01 +0100, Al Beano wrote:
> Voting starts: 2018-08-16 16:00 UTC
> Voting ends: 2018-08-23 16:00 UTC
> 
> The quality of discourse on this list recently has been extremely poor, 
> and although I am loath to introduce yet another bureaucratic vote, I 
> think that a standard, agreed upon set of voting rules would go some way 
> towards improving things here.
> 
> I started a discussion about this some weeks ago 
> (https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html) 
> and I am now bringing this to a vote.
> 
> 1. Formal votes on proposals submitted to the mailing list will have 
> three possible responses: yes, no and spoiled ballot/abstention.
> 2. Responses which clearly contain "YES", "AYE" or words to that effect 
> will be considered "yes" votes.
> 3. Responses which clearly contain "NO", "NAY" or words to that effect 
> will be considered "no" votes.
> 4. All other responses will be considered abstentions from voting and 
> counted as such.
> 5. Motions will pass with a simple majority of all yes/no votes. 
> Abstentions do not affect the outcome in any way. They are informational.
> 6. In the event of a tie, the status quo will be preserved.
> 7. This proposal will govern all votes submitted after it passes.
> 
> This proposal only governs *formal* votes - that is, votes which will 
> directly affect the way OpenNIC runs. If members want to use a different 
> method to gauge the membership's opinion, for example to allow more than 
> two outcomes in a vote, they are still able to do that in any way they 
> want. If they want to make a formal change to the rules after that, they 
> would have to run a vote in compliance with the rules above.
> 
> Obviously, my vote for this is YES.
> 
> albino


-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)