discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Discuss mailing list
List archive
- From: Sebastian Makowiecki <soocki AT mailbox.org>
- To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
- Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 23:25:51 +0100
or a number of reasons I am against this.
- it wasn't properly discussed
- the proposal is immature
- Invalid votes should have meaning
- in certain situations invalid votes should affect the overall outcome of the vote
~
Sebastian Makowiecki
On 16 August 2018 17:01:14 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <albino AT autistici.org> 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
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, (continued)
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Sebastian Makowiecki, 08/16/2018
- [opennic-discuss] Random commentary [WAS: Re: [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules], Philipp Schafft, 08/16/2018
- [opennic-discuss] [DISCUSSION] Clarification of voting rules, Sebastian Makowiecki, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [DISCUSSION] Clarification of voting rules, Al Beano, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [DISCUSSION] Clarification of voting rules, Sebastian Makowiecki, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [DISCUSSION] Clarification of voting rules, Al Beano, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Daniel Quintiliani, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Jack Ternan, 08/19/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Dennis Emory Hannon, 08/20/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Amunak, 08/20/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Jack Ternan, 08/19/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Megan Parat, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Sebastian Makowiecki, 08/16/2018
- Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules, Jacob Bachmeyer, 08/21/2018
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.