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

Rational discussion is what we need. This is the way adults try to reach some form of agreement, at least so I heard.

~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 16 August 2018 17:58:34 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:
>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]