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]