Re: CFD, EB members and admin votes

[This thread's subject should have been CFD:.. but I did an
unfortunate typo.  This is still a discussion, votes haven't started
yet.]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Sa, 2004-07-17 at 20:39, Andy Smith wrote:
> > Not only is it artificial and unfair to force us to either not vote
> > or put someone whose interests may not be the best interests of the
> > primary force behind the server in the voting seat.
> 
> But still Andryan would get two votes as he has got two servers linked?

I wanted to avoid going into the specifics of carrot and penguin,
but maybe that was unrealistic of me.  Andryan currently has one
server linked, carrot, and he doesn't have a vote for it.  Phil
Spencer casts the votes at carrot.

> (As you said Phil would probably have to resign of carrot.)

I never said this.

What I said was that if my proposal was accepted then Phil would no
longer be voting for carrot.  I didn't say he shouldn't be a
co-admin, I didn't say he couldn't be an oper, I said nothing about
that, that is between he and Andryan.

> That's something I wouldn't support. It should be written down anywhere
> that any admin who has two servers would only get one link.

If you s/link/vote then I think it is written down somewhere.

Currently Andyran has zero votes so I think your fears are
unfounded.

I also agree with you that one person shouldn't have more than one
vote, which means when one person is linking multiple servers they
get one vote for the lot of them.  I think this situation should be
discouraged but not to the point that we refuse good servers.

> Just to recall it: In the past we rejected merges of networks with many
> servers because they would get half of Blitzed's votes.

I wouldn't say that we rejected them purely on that basis, but yes,
the fact that newly-linked admins would have have half our votes was
a factor.  It's not really relevant to this topic though is it?

> > So what I am proposing is that the special rules about EB not being
> > allowed votes when they are IRC admins be removed, for the good and
> > simplicity of the network.  I am not suggesting that all EB have
> > votes always.  Only that there be no special rule against EB who are
> > also server admins.
> 
> Still, if a proposal is initiated by an EB member (which happens quite
> more often) and the vote is tied, it will probably succeed in the end
> even if half of the Admin team was against it.

We have had very few tied votes and as the number of admins
increases we will have even less.  Also when we have had tied votes
(it's only happened once or twice in nearly 4 years), EB have been
of differing opinions.  I think it's always been 2/1 split of
opinions each time in fact.

_______________________________________________
public mailing list
public-Hb7ITwsGSD4lroQnaJEqWdi2O/[email protected]
http://lists.blitzed.org/listinfo/public

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFA+XwXIJm2TL8VSQsRAs8BAKCPs694HfZIJXyal9sAfO2E924SowCg4Ycm
mu1codjfs1NVajG8d4co0S0=
=/qG4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----