Discuss mailing list

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

Good afternoon,

On Thu, 2018-08-16 at 17:47 +0100, Al Beano wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for your input.

Thank you. I value your request for voting very much. Yet for the given
reasons I hope that it will not pass so we can write a better one. That
being my opinion. Let's see what the members vote!


> 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.

Yes. And I personally feel that this is the wrong way. To me (this is
how my dictionary defines it) abstentions include every member not
replying to the voting thread at all (passive act). Which is very
different from sending a spoiled vote (active act).


> 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.

Yes. This is how I understood it. Thank you for making it perfectly
clear for everybody -- just in case --.

My point here is that if 100 people compared to 3 people feel that the
voting itself is a problem, e.g. none of the options is valid, that
should keep the status quo. See the above, spoiling votes is an active
act. so they should be included in the outcome. While abstentions
clearly should not.


> I sent an archive link to my [PROPOSAL] thread in my initial email. 

Ok. Thank you very much.


> 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.

This sounds like a solution that is perfectly fine for OpenNIC. I'm very
happy with that.

With best regards,


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

-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)