Re: [opennic-discuss] [VOTE] Clarification of voting rules
Sebastian Makowiecki <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Aug 2018 23:25:51 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.opennic.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
or a number of reasons I am against this. - it wasn't properly discussed - the proposal is immature - Invalid votes should have meaning - in certain situations invalid votes should affect the overall outcome of the vote ~ Sebastian Makowiecki On 16 August 2018 17:01:14 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <[email protected]> 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]