Discuss mailing list

[Sebastian Makowiecki <soocki AT mailbox.org>]

Rational discussion is what we need. This is the way adults try to reach some form of agreement, at least so I heard.

~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 16 August 2018 17:58:34 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> wrote:

Hi,

The discussion fizzled out pretty quickly so I thought the best thing 
would be to just bring it to a vote.

Try searching in your mail client for "[PROPOSAL] Clarification of 
voting rules".

I'm not aware of any rule that requires the content of a [VOTE] email to 
be identical to that of a [PROPOSAL]. If such a rule exists, I am happy 
to end the vote and continue the discussion. At least we are having a 
somewhat productive conversation now.

albino

On 16/08/18 17:53, Sebastian Makowiecki wrote:

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)
<https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html%29>
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