Proposal - EN World downtime does not count towards 48 h proposal deadlines

[elecgraystone]

"In case of a site crash or similar long-term inaccessibility to L4W, the deadline is extended to the end of the day following the one where access it restored (using EN World's GMT +2)."

Interesting idea Dunamin. Depending when someone notices the place is up and running, the time would go from a little over 24hrs to almost 48hrs.

Elecgraystone, with respect, I think you're not exactly the norm, here. I think most of us are content with a bit longer wait for new material.

I never claimed I was normal. I'm just putting forth my idea for how long I feel an extension/grace period after a shutdown should be. IMO the possibility of adding several days to a 2 day vote is more than a bit. I think there is merit in a shorter time for some votes and longer for others.

However, I wasn't the only to think a strict 48 hour reset was wouldn't be fair, so I can't be THAT strange.

Having only 24 hours after Enworld crashing immediately after the last vote is cast wouldn't necessarily be fair, nor would resetting the 48 hours if it was only 8 hours left in the voting time.

 

[Kalidrev]

However, I wasn't the only to think a strict 48 hour reset was wouldn't be fair, so I can't be THAT strange.

We'll be strange together and rule the world!!! Muahahahaha!!!!

 

[covaithe]

Scenario A: Proposal gets its deciding vote (the one that pushes it into the victory conditions) at midnight on Monday. It will become official at midnight on Wednesday. On wednesday evening, sometime between 11 PM and 1 AM, the site goes down, but no one knows exactly when. Sometime on Thursday it comes back up, and another judge comes in and says that they were going to vote No on Wednesday night, but the site was down. If they had gotten in in time, their No vote would have bumped the proposal out of the victory conditions.

Scenario B: As in A, but the No judge doesn't speak up until Friday morning. No one is sure whether their No vote comes within 24 hours of the site coming back up.

Scenario C: As in A, but the No judge doesn't post until a week later, saying that he suddenly had to go out of town while the site was down.

Scenario D: A proposal has 2 Yes votes and no No votes. On Wednesday night between 11 PM and 1 AM, the server goes down. It stays down for over 48 hours, and comes up sometime Saturday morning. On Saturday morning, two judges vote. One says Yes, and says that they tried to vote Wednesday night but the server was down, and the other says No, but is only just getting to it. If the server had been up the whole time, the proposal would have passed and been official before the No judge got to it.

Any other scenarios we need to worry about?

Common sense would seem to indicate that in A and B, the proposal doesn't pass. In C it does, and in D it doesn't.

I'm not sure how to write a proposal that describes that sort of reasoning.

 

[Dunamin]

Common sense would seem to indicate that in A and B, the proposal doesn't pass. In C it does, and in D it doesn't.

If I've understood your scenarios correctly, then your answers to them agree with the latest suggestion. If the server is back up Thursday the new deadline would be the end of Friday. If it’s up Saturday the new deadline would be the end of Sunday.

Note that in your last example the proposal still ends up with victory conditions, though, so it would still pass by the end of Sunday in absence of any change.

 

[elecgraystone]

While Dunamin's suggestion isn't the way I'd do it, I'd be willing to go with it. I can see I was a bit dogged in a 24hr arguments. This seems like a good compromise that's will end up being somewhere between a 24 and 48 hour wait.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I like Dunamin's latest idea. Ideally, I'd like to say that proposal countdowns freeze for the duration of the downtime, but because we can't know exactly when the site comes up (unless we pester Morrus or the other staff to find out and tell us), I think it's best to create a new 'deadline time'. Midnight server time makes as much sense as any other choice.

Also:

YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges when the server is inaccessible.
YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges, even if the server is accessible.

I vote YES to both of those.

 

[garyh]

"In case of a site crash or similar long-term inaccessibility to L4W, the deadline is extended to the end of the day following the one where access it restored (using EN World's GMT +2)."

YES to this idea.

YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges when the server is inaccessible.

NO on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges, even if the server is accessible.

I think votes should be made in public and as part of the discussion as much as possible. I think it's okay to vote via e-mail when that's the only option, but if the boards are up, then vote in public.

Ironically, EN World went down for about a day right when I was typing this up yesterday...

 

[JoeNotCharles]

It's been down longer than a day, my friend.

Anyway, I just want to note that part of the "allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges" proposal was that all votes are publicized later, so it's not totally private.

 

[garyh]

It's been down longer than a day, my friend.

Anyway, I just want to note that part of the "allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges" proposal was that all votes are publicized later, so it's not totally private.

It was a day when I snuck in that post. Couldn't get through again from then till now.

My thought on the public voting is that if a judge could be swayed before the vote goes official, the proposer doesn't really get that chance if the votes are offline.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

Wow, a lot of proposals flew around in this thread, but it looks like only 2 of them got more than 1 vote:

3 YES on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges when the server is inaccessible.
3 YES, 1 NO on allowing the judges to vote on proposals by emailing l4w.judges, even if the server is accessible.

So it looks like votes can be recorded by emailing l4w.judges at any time. I'll update the charter.

My intention when I first proposed that was that it was to be used as a backup if the judge couldn't get to the server (either because enworld is down, or they only have access to email or something). So a judge would email the list, and one of the other judges would post to the forum saying, "so-and-so voted this way on the mailing list" - no hidden ballot. Any objection to that?