Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules

discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org>
  • To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules
  • Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 16:38:13 +0000

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)



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page