Re: [opennic-discuss] [PROPOSAL] Invalidate previous vote; eliminate other forms of voting

Someone eventually did count the votes the "instant runoff" way, and got "1 week" as a result. To avoid confusion, including on my part, everything should be repealed.

Some time ago I had a proposal for a "nonbinding suggestion" regarding the .libre TLD which won out (though was rejected by the owner of the .libre TLD). There's nothing wrong with doing these nonbinding sort of votes (honestly I still have no idea how "instant runoff" works and was simply going by "last place eliminated from next round" when I wrote the second proposal) with yea/nay to approve it.

--

-Dan Q


On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 16:35:22 +0200, Amunak <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is still stupid, reactionary and unnecessary.
> 
> Like, there's never been a major issue with any kind of voting before, 
> and why'd you ban a decent system just because of one poor implementation?
> 
> Also, why do you feel like it's necessary to "nullify" a vote that has 
> not passed anyway?
> 
> If anything, there should be a requirement where a *final* vote has to 
> be a yes/no (as in, implement or do not implement), but there should be 
> no restriction on previous discussion or non-final votes. Voting in 
> general is a pretty good mechanism to gauge interest and opinions.
> 
> 
> On 01.08.2018 21:29, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> > Per our discussion in this and other threads about proposals vs. personal attacks and allegations of fraud, I would like to propose the following alternative which does not mention my name or include such allegations and attacks:
> >
> > Subject: [VOTE] Invalidate previous vote; eliminate other forms of voting
> >
> > 1. The proposal entitled "Reintroduction of past proposals", including all associated votes, (re)counts, and results, is declared null and void.
> > 2. The proposal entitled "Reintroduction of past proposals, IR, R1", including all associated votes, (re)counts, and results, is declared null and void.
> > 3. The method in which the votes for the above proposals were counted are hereby declared invalid for the above two proposals and shall not be used for future proposals.
> > 4. All votes in the future should be a simple “Aye/Yes” vs “Nay/No” style of voting.
> >
> > This vote shall be done in "Aye/Yes" and "Nay/No" style.
> >
> > These rules shall take effect two days after the votes have been counted and the results have been published to the mailing list.
> >
> > ^^ I think it takes care of the actual procedural end of things without accusations or personal attacks against myself. Jonah, will you accept this for the vote, or do you have changes to suggest?
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Dan Q
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 23:05:03 -0500, Jonah Aragon, OpenNIC Core Team <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I would like to invalidate the results of Daniel Q’s previous vote, which was counted in a manner inconsistent with normal “instant runoff voting” procedure. As he won’t permit a sane recount by other community members including myself, the vote and all future related votes being conducted with the same voting procedure should be considered misleading and invalid.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, I’d like to mandate that all votes in the future should be a simple “Aye/Yes” vs “Nay/No” style of voting, to avoid any such confusion again.
> >>
> >> This proposal will be voted on as soon as legally permissible.
> >>
> >> Jonah
> >>
> >>
> >> --------
> >> 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]