Revision [1740]
This is an old revision of votingsolutions made by JulianDemarchi on 2008-08-07 18:53:23.
OpenNIC Voting Discussions
Contained on this page will be discussions in regards to a possible voting system for OpenNIC. This discussion will also cover an amendment to the OpenNIC charter.
Talk So Far
Gal Buki
Last voting showed that there are many things that could be misunderstood.
Because of that I propose that we add some voting rules to the charter.
e.g.
1. Voting has to be started with an Announce Email that has the Title
"VOTE: Subject"
2. The Email musst state what the vote is about
3. The Email musst state what happens when voting yes, and no
4. The Email must state the start and end time in UTC!
5. Voting can only beginn at least 24 hours after sending the announce
email but not after 48 hours
or:
4. Voting starts always at 12.00 UTC and ends 11.59 UTC; the announcment
musst state the next possible voting start and end time according to point 5
5. Voting can only beginn at least 24 hours after sending the announce
email but not after 48 hours
Why those rules:
1. Also those who don't read every email can easily see when a vote is held
2. So that is clear what we are voting about
3. So that it is clear how one should vote for getting his expected result
4. UTC is clear, everyone can check it and there is no summer and winter
time which could mix things up
5. An annonce should come at least 24 hours in advance so that also
those who don't read there mail often have a chance for participating in
the full 7 days time span
Tim Post
I think we need to set up demonstrations of all free/open voting
applications for members to try and then make a final list vote of which
one to use.
This is madness, only because the process could be so simple but is not.
Voting on a list is a practice that will continuously be called in to
question by many new members. The current uproar is the result of that
practice and will continue to be the result of that practice until
something else is put in place.
If you'll set up the wiki page, I'll set up the sandbox for people to
test various voting systems.
What remains is, someone who does not vote must watch over said systems.
Private, secure voting is needed. If I vote "no" to something, I do not
care to be challenged on a public list that Google remembers to explain
my stance that was inspired by a "gut instinct". Unless anyone can find
some way of articulating a negative that might satisfy the scrutiny of
some hostile peer review?
"Would you care to explain your stance?" is not a question that I wish
to hear after voting, much less entertain on a public list. We have the
opportunity to fix this, as such we should, as such we must. The
lingering possibility of such an inquisition will, in fact influence
votes.
Should someone care to announce and explain a yes or no stance to other
members, that is up to them. Voting on a public list takes away that
choice.
