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

Hi,

The discussion fizzled out pretty quickly so I thought the best thing 
would be to just bring it to a vote.

Try searching in your mail client for "[PROPOSAL] Clarification of 
voting rules".

I'm not aware of any rule that requires the content of a [VOTE] email to 
be identical to that of a [PROPOSAL]. If such a rule exists, I am happy 
to end the vote and continue the discussion. At least we are having a 
somewhat productive conversation now.

albino

On 16/08/18 17:53, Sebastian Makowiecki wrote:
> 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)
>             <https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html%29>
>             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]



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