Discuss mailing list

[Sebastian Makowiecki <soocki AT mailbox.org>]

Not trying to be difficult here, but I was also unaware of any ongoing discussion.

The link:
https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html does not seem valid, am I the only one having trouble opening it?

~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 16 August 2018 17:47:17 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for your input.

I'm equating abstentions and spoiled ballots here - my idea is that 
people can abstain by writing "abstain", they can abstain by writing 
their favourite word in their native language - they can abstain by 
writing anything other than a yes/no vote.

By number 5, I mean that, for example, in a vote with 2 yes votes, 1 no 
vote and 100 spoiled ballots, the motion would pass. The spoiled ballots 
*must* be counted but they do not affect the result.

I sent an archive link to my [PROPOSAL] thread in my initial email. 
Apologies that I was very slightly late sending the email - I am hereby 
extending the time limit of this vote by one minute and seven seconds in 
order to comply with the seven-day rule. I hope that nobody objects to 
this - I don't think the rules specify whether I can/cannot do this but 
I am doing my best to work in good faith and make this fair.

albino

On 16/08/18 17:38, Philipp Schafft wrote:

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

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org