Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Reintroduction of past proposals, instant runoff

Sorry, must've missed that. That's why we have discussion threads with drafts :)

(H) 1 week
(I) I vote against this change in policy.

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 18:38:55 -0700, <[email protected]> wrote:

> How come one week is not on there?
> 
> ~ Ole
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 21:32:29 -0400 (EDT)
> "Daniel Quintiliani" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Here is a proposed draft (note how I readded suggested
> > months, and how I changed to January, as February is a
> > bit too far):
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > The first round:
> > 
> > Vote up to 8 times in order of preference. In each round,
> > an option may be chosen only once. The option with the
> > least number of votes shall be removed from the upcoming
> > round. All items with 0 votes shall be removed from the
> > upcoming round.
> > 
> > Previously failed proposals to create OpenNIC TLDs, and
> > all identical duplicates of proposals which have failed
> > to pass, shall not be introduced for another:
> > 
> > (A) 12 months
> > (B) 9 months
> > (C) 8 months
> > (D) 6 months
> > (E) 4 months
> > (F) 3 months
> > (G) 1 month
> > (H) I vote against this change in policy.
> > 
> > This proposal, if passed, shall take effect on January 1,
> > 2019, at 00:00 UTC.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > The second round, in the example of three options are
> > removed, will be:
> > 
> > Vote up to 5 times in order of preference. In each round,
> > an option may be chosen only once. The option with the
> > least number of votes shall be removed from the upcoming
> > round.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > When there are only two options left:
> > 
> > Please vote only once from the following two options:
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > -Dan Q
> > 
> > On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel
> > Quintiliani" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > A number of people were unhappy with the recent vote on
> > > reintroduction of proposals. Many had proposals such as
> > > multiple rounds of voting, which were very confusing. I
> > > attempted to simplify things by taking only multiples
> > > of 3 up to 12, 1 month, and no change. There were also
> > > two protest votes by people who wanted other amounts of
> > > months and were not willing to compromise.
> > > 
> > > In major elections in my country, you start out with
> > > many choices between candidates, who drop out until one
> > > candidate from each party remains, and then one wins
> > > the election. The only exception to that is in the
> > > extremely rare case when a third-party candidate is
> > > relevant. Third party candidates serve no purpose but
> > > to (1) encourage the major party canidates to adopt
> > > their views and/or (2) split the vote and help the
> > > other side win.
> > > 
> > > I assumed that with this vote, people would rally
> > > behind a single option as time went on. This did not
> > > happen, as angry voters cast protest votes such as
> > > "C->D 4 months" and "<invalid>"
> > > 
> > > Shortly after I put the issue to vote, I was discussing
> > > with vvande and others on Discord a European style of
> > > voting called "instant runoff voting" in which there's
> > > less of a need to compromise. In this case, one votes
> > > for as many of the options as they choose, in order of
> > > preference. There are multiple rounds of voting in this
> > > case, in which the each round would remove the last
> > > place option, until only one option remains. If any
> > > option has zero votes in a round, they would also be
> > > removed.
> > > 
> > > Votes are then counted in this manner:
> > > 
> > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IRV_counting_flowchart.svg 
> > > 
> > > I didn't want to tamper with the election so I stayed
> > > quiet until it ended, with plans to reintroduce with
> > > instant runoff voting if no changes were made. 
> > > 
> > > So as no changes have been made, I will use this same
> > > vote, instant-runoff voting, this time with 4 and 8
> > > months added back to the choices, and with the
> > > effective date pushed ahead to February 2019. The
> > > initial vote will start on the 24th and last through
> > > the 31st.
> > > 
> > > In addition to the original proposal, we have had
> > > proposals such as .free/.libre/.liber/etc which were
> > > not limited to yea/nay. Thus unless the .free vote and
> > > others are illegitimate, there is nothing prohibiting
> > > instant runoff voting, and this proposal can be brought
> > > to a vote.
> > > 
> > > Any comments before the voting starts should go in this
> > > thread.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > -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]