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

Hi,

Thanks for your input.

I'm equating abstentions and spoiled ballots here - my idea is that 
people can abstain by writing "abstain", they can abstain by writing 
their favourite word in their native language - they can abstain by 
writing anything other than a yes/no vote.

By number 5, I mean that, for example, in a vote with 2 yes votes, 1 no 
vote and 100 spoiled ballots, the motion would pass. The spoiled ballots 
*must* be counted but they do not affect the result.

I sent an archive link to my [PROPOSAL] thread in my initial email. 
Apologies that I was very slightly late sending the email - I am hereby 
extending the time limit of this vote by one minute and seven seconds in 
order to comply with the seven-day rule. I hope that nobody objects to 
this - I don't think the rules specify whether I can/cannot do this but 
I am doing my best to work in good faith and make this fair.

albino

On 16/08/18 17:38, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> My vote is: No.
>
>        * "words to that effect" ("2.", "3.") is not defined.
>        * I do not see how "abstentions" can be counted. Maybe my
>          dictionaries definition of "abstentions" needs update?
>        * "5." is in contrast to "4.". While "4." suggest that votes
>          beside yes and no are counted "5." cancels this effect.
>        * "5." does attack the right to of spoiled votes.
>
> I must also note that:
>        * There has not been any discussion before this voting that is
>          directly linked to it that I am aware of. Please provide
>          reference.
>        * Voting was called to start at "2018-08-16 16:00 UTC". This mail
>          was sent Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:01:14 +0100 and hit OpenNIC's
>          server (that does not mean it was processed in any way) on Thu,
>          16 Aug 2018 16:01:07 UTC. The 7-day rule is violated.
>        * Suggesting a formal process and by that breaking a one of the
>          few rules there are is not exactly best example.
>
>
> On Thu, 2018-08-16 at 17:01 +0100, Al Beano wrote:
>> Voting starts: 2018-08-16 16:00 UTC
>> Voting ends: 2018-08-23 16:00 UTC
>>
>> The quality of discourse on this list recently has been extremely poor,
>> and although I am loath to introduce yet another bureaucratic vote, I
>> think that a standard, agreed upon set of voting rules would go some way
>> towards improving things here.
>>
>> I started a discussion about this some weeks ago
>> (https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html)
>> and I am now bringing this to a vote.
>>
>> 1. Formal votes on proposals submitted to the mailing list will have
>> three possible responses: yes, no and spoiled ballot/abstention.
>> 2. Responses which clearly contain "YES", "AYE" or words to that effect
>> will be considered "yes" votes.
>> 3. Responses which clearly contain "NO", "NAY" or words to that effect
>> will be considered "no" votes.
>> 4. All other responses will be considered abstentions from voting and
>> counted as such.
>> 5. Motions will pass with a simple majority of all yes/no votes.
>> Abstentions do not affect the outcome in any way. They are informational.
>> 6. In the event of a tie, the status quo will be preserved.
>> 7. This proposal will govern all votes submitted after it passes.
>>
>> This proposal only governs *formal* votes - that is, votes which will
>> directly affect the way OpenNIC runs. If members want to use a different
>> method to gauge the membership's opinion, for example to allow more than
>> two outcomes in a vote, they are still able to do that in any way they
>> want. If they want to make a formal change to the rules after that, they
>> would have to run a vote in compliance with the rules above.
>>
>> Obviously, my vote for this is YES.
>>
>> 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]