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

I vote "no."

OpenNIC is not a government, incorporated entity, or even an unincorporated association. We vote on things to get a general feel for community opinion on how we each should use our servers, time, etc.

Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 2:15 PM

From: "Daniel Quintiliani" <[email protected]>

To: discuss <[email protected]>

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

While I have raised objections to this in the past, given the fact that none of us can be trusted to act like adults...

I vote YES.

--

-Dan Q

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:01:14 +0100, 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]

--------

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]