Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Clarification of voting rules

I understand what you are saying now, and it seems a good idea in principle, but as the recent FPTP vote illustrated, a lot of people aren't willing to compromise, and you can't guarantee everyone will be around/care for the final yea/nay, so you wind up with wasted votes.

--

-Dan Q

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:34:40 +0100, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think this misses the point a bit.
> 
> If a proposer is allowed to implement their own voting system, they can 
> implement one that they think will favour their preferred outcome. There 
> are cases in which no voting system is objectively the best, so the only 
> thing that I think we can all fully agree on is a simple ratification 
> with a majority of the vote. This prevents anything against the wishes 
> of the members happening. That's how most bodies similar to OpenNIC 
> function, anyway.
> 
> albino
> 
> On 21/07/18 01:29, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> > Over 50% i think is already in place, we decided that a while ago when we voted on Jonah's proposals.
> >
> > I support your idea of "a tie would result in the status quo being preserved." but forcing yea/nay for every situation is inefficient and long. (I mentioned choosing a replacement for .free as one of those situations.)
> >
> > Perhaps yea/nay should be assumed in all cases unless the voting process is described in the proposal.
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Dan Q
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:23:02 +0100, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I would question the methodology used in these cases, but yes, we have
> >> to be pragmatic so I would only want to alter the rules
> >> for***upcoming*proposals.
> >>
> >> albino
> >>
> >> On 21/07/18 01:17, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> >>> If you wish to do this, this would apply to FUTURE proposals...otherwise several past votes
> >>> are illegitimate (such as .libre/.free)
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> -Dan Q
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 01:15:38 +0100, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Recent events suggest that we should clarify a set of voting rules.
> >>>>
> >>>> My view is that all proposals submitted to the ML (or DokuWiki as the
> >>>> case may be) should be subject so a simple yes/no vote, and pass with a
> >>>> majority over 50%. A tie would result in the status quo being preserved.
> >>>> No other options would be allowed.
> >>>>
> >>>> This system means that all proposals that pass have the full support of
> >>>> the majority of voters. Proposals with more complex implementation
> >>>> details (e.g. the current one re "Reintroduction of past proposals") can
> >>>> be formed however the person writing them wants - including by gathering
> >>>> the thoughts of members using the ML or other means - but they bear no
> >>>> weight until ratified by a simple majority of members.
> >>>>
> >>>> albino
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --------
> >>>> 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]
> 
> 
> --------
> 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]