Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] 1 year wait before re-voting

Should 'no changes' also be included in the second vote?

How about a vote where everyone also suggests the 'cool down period' in days/weeks/months/years. If the motion passes we will have a rough idea of the expectations of members regarding the duration of proposed cool down period. A second vote would decide on the duration of the proposed cool down. This way the 'no' voters can still have a say regarding the duration of cool down.

On 11 July 2018 20:29:48 GMT+01:00, Daniel Quintiliani <[email protected]> wrote:
>Here is a draft idea:
>
>Proposals for OpenNIC TLDs, and all identical proposals using the same
>text, which have failed to pass, shall not be reintroduced for another:
>
>* 1 year
>* 8 months
>* 6 months
>* Less than 6 months, as determined by a separate vote
>* No changes
>
>This proposal, which shall not be reintroduced for at least 1 year,
>shall take effect 1 month after the vote passes.
>
>^^If less than 6 months is chosen by membership, the separate vote
>would be:
>
>Proposals for OpenNIC TLDs, and all identical proposals using the same
>text, which have failed to pass, shall not be reintroduced for another:
>
>* 4 months
>* 3 months
>* 1 month
>* No changes
>
>This proposal, which shall not be reintroduced for at least 1 year,
>shall take effect 1 month after the vote passes.
>
>^^is this way better?
>
>--
>
>-Dan Q
>
>On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually "by actor" would not be needed (and an easy way around
>things) if it was limited to literally identical text (as described
>below)
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> -Dan Q
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 15:14:20 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> > "By actor" is good, and all three examples I gave were by actor.
>> > 
>> > You're right, it's best to only limit it to literally identical
>text, rather than try and cover subject matter in general. This way
>"let's do the .front vote again" or "let's vote on proposals B and D
>[exactly as they are written] again" would be covered by this policy
>while "I'll make a new proposal with a revised B and D" would not.
>> > 
>> > --
>> > 
>> > -Dan Q
>> > 
>> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:02:01 -0500, Jonah Aragon
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Just some thoughts I had... 
>> > > 
>> > > What differentiates proposals? Is it by idea? If I hate an idea
>could I start a vote on it with some outlandish conclusion people would
>be forced to vote “no” on, and now nobody can propose anything like it
>for a year? For example, I could start a vote saying that if a proposal
>fails, nobody can start another one for 1000 years. Once everybody says
>no, is a “1 year wait before re-voting” proposal disallowed because
>it’s a different take on the same idea?
>> > > 
>> > > Is it by actor? What’s stopping me from giving my failed proposal
>plus a few modifications to a buddy of mine to propose?
>> > > 
>> > > Is it some combination of the two that determines uniqueness? If
>so, who’s the judge of that? This could be used as a heavy handed tool
>to prevent proposals by a single person or across a very wide scope of
>ideas, because they’re “too similar.”
>> > > 
>> > > When we make proposals it’s important to codify things exactly,
>in my opinion. Sure, maybe a “reasonable judgement”-based idea like
>this might work within our current community, but we should consider
>new users or a potential rapid growth of our community that could
>destabilize an organization like ours with “policies” like this. 
>> > > 
>> > > Jonah
>> > > 
>> > > > On Jul 9, 2018, at 1:28 PM, Daniel Quintiliani
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > 
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > > 
>> > > > There has been a problem of people trying to hold new votes too
>recently after their proposals lose. This includes Jonah's proposals to
>replace IRC with Discord and Sympa with Discourse, and someone who lost
>I think the .front TLD, and I did so myself with the .free/.libre
>thing.
>> > > > 
>> > > > I propose there be a one year (365 day) waiting period before
>anyone can bring proposals back up for a new vote.
>> > > > 
>> > > > What do you think?
>> > > > 
>> > > > --
>> > > > 
>> > > > -Dan Q
>> > > > 
>> > > > 
>> > > > --------
>> > > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>> > > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>[email protected]
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > > --------
>> > > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>> > > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>[email protected]
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --------
>> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>> > You may unsubscribe by emailing
>[email protected]
>> 
>> 
>> --------
>> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>> You may unsubscribe by emailing
>[email protected]


~
Sebastian Makowiecki



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]