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

Too confusing. It's best to end this proposal at the maximum value (1 year) rather than counting it against future proposals (or giving its fate to the "month after the vote" set aside for Jonah's current proposals), because people can play back-and-forth games with the end result.

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:45:51 +0100, Sebastian Makowiecki <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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]



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