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

DanQ: Just as a side note/comment: my intensions were (not first nor 
the last time) misunderstood. I was by no means 'angry/dissatisfied' 
when I was  initially casting my invalid vote. Oh, sweet ignorance!

~
Sebastian Makowiecki

On Sat, 21 Jul, 2018 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Quintiliani <[email protected]> 
wrote:
> 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]



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