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

Not trying to be difficult here, but I was also unaware of any ongoing discussion.

The link:
https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html does not seem valid, am I the only one having trouble opening it?

~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 16 August 2018 17:47:17 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:
>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]