Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021, 08:45 Thomas Goirand wrote: > > Yes, I agree with you. Thought my proposal was to change that fact (ie: > change the constitution) so we can give more power to Kurt. > Ah, got it. Yes, I also agree with you that this would be a good thing. :) >

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

* Sam Hartman [2021-04-19 07:03]: I thought you were focused on the voting mechanism not so much on the constitutional changes. I think this question belongs to that constitutional discussion. It was not my intention segue into the constitutional discussion, I was merely looking to enumerate

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

> "Timo" == Timo Röhling writes: Timo> * Stéphane Glondu [2021-04-16 17:12]: >> I would be glad to help :-) Timo> Great! >>> With all that being said and having made my case, I am open for >>> any reasonably secure solution (including Belenios) that we can >>> agree

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On 4/19/21 5:26 AM, Olek Wojnar wrote: > Most of us in Debian take privacy very > seriously, let's extend that to our votes as well. Let's not mix words. We're talking about secrecy here, not privacy. IMO, completely open votes are also nice, it's just that in the RMS vote context, it wasn't

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On 4/19/21 5:58 AM, Olek Wojnar wrote: > Hi zigo, > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 6:16 PM Thomas Goirand > wrote: > > > I'd be very much for leaving the decision of open/close to our > secretary, with most votes open, and the possibility for him to decide > when

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:58:55PM -0400, Olek Wojnar wrote: > Hi zigo, > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 6:16 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > > > I'd be very much for leaving the decision of open/close to our > > secretary, with most votes open, and the possibility for him to decide > > when it

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

Hi zigo, On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 6:16 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > I'd be very much for leaving the decision of open/close to our > secretary, with most votes open, and the possibility for him to decide > when it should be closed. I trust Kurt to do the right thing whenever a > vote (like the

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 5:08 PM Timo Röhling wrote: > > 1. Do we want to retain the ability to vote openly? > Yes, options are always good. However, as I mentioned on Salsa[1], I think secret is the better default going forward. Confidentiality allows people to vote what they think instead of

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 09:22:38PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > No, please don't. We already have problems enough with HTML - a structured > form would need to be fully accessible, secure, validated. A signed email > is (relatively) more straightforward and has served us well for the last

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On 4/18/21 11:01 PM, Timo Röhling wrote: > * Stéphane Glondu [2021-04-16 17:12]: >> I would be glad to help :-) > Great! > >>> With all that being said and having made my case, I am open for any >>> reasonably secure solution (including Belenios) that we can agree on, >>> and I will help

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:01:36PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote: > * Stéphane Glondu [2021-04-16 17:12]: > > I would be glad to help :-) > Great! > > > > With all that being said and having made my case, I am open for any > > > reasonably secure solution (including Belenios) that we can agree on, >

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

* Stéphane Glondu [2021-04-16 17:12]: I would be glad to help :-) Great! With all that being said and having made my case, I am open for any reasonably secure solution (including Belenios) that we can agree on, and I will help implement it if I can. And I am open to make changes in Belenios

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

Le 14/04/2021 à 18:57, Timo Röhling a écrit : > I certainly wouldn't mind if Stephane were willing to help us setup > a nifty e-voting solution and advise us on the best way to proceed. I would be glad to help :-) > Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understood it, we cannot avoid > that

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

* Pierre-Elliott Bécue [2021-04-14 18:44]: If you wish to start a DEP on the matter Timo I am eager to grant you DEP16 as you asked. :) Yes, thank you! Cheers Timo -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

* Russ Allbery [2021-04-13 15:51]: As Kurt mentioned (but buried in one of those debian-vote threads), take a look at Belenios if you aren't already familiar with it. As a bonus, the developer is a member of the Debian project. I certainly wouldn't mind if Stephane were willing to help us

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

Le 14 avril 2021 00:51:31 GMT+02:00, Russ Allbery a écrit : >Timo Röhling writes: > >> I would like to implement a cryptographic protocol that provides the >> same level of verifiability for secret votes as the currently used >> public votes. In particular, I would like to see some additional

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

Timo Röhling writes: > I would like to implement a cryptographic protocol that provides the > same level of verifiability for secret votes as the currently used > public votes. In particular, I would like to see some additional proof > that the published hash values actually belong to eligible

Re: Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

* Adrian Bunk [2021-04-13 19:08:14]: What improvements do you have in mind? I would like to implement a cryptographic protocol that provides the same level of verifiability for secret votes as the currently used public votes. In particular, I would like to see some additional proof that the

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:41:52AM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote: >... > Also, I want to clarify that > the current protocol with hash pseudonyms for secret voting in DPL elections > is not in the Constitution either >... 4.2.6 Votes are cast by email in a manner suitable to the Secretary. > If you

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

> "Timo" == Timo Röhling writes: Timo> * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [2021-04-13 11:19]: >> I would rather not reserve any DEP for this right now. We >> actually don't really know if any space for DEP text regarding >> secret voting will be left out. The voting procedure is >>

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

* Pierre-Elliott Bécue [2021-04-13 11:19]: I would rather not reserve any DEP for this right now. We actually don't really know if any space for DEP text regarding secret voting will be left out. The voting procedure is historically described extensively in the Constitution, and no DEP will be

Re: DEP-16 Confidential votes

Le mardi 13 avril 2021 à 10:55:33+0200, Timo Röhling a écrit : > Hello everyone, > > in anticipation of the fact that the Debian project might conduct more > confidential votes on General Resolutions in the future, I would like to > reserve DEP-16 for an improved voting procedure for confidential

DEP-16 Confidential votes

Hello everyone, in anticipation of the fact that the Debian project might conduct more confidential votes on General Resolutions in the future, I would like to reserve DEP-16 for an improved voting procedure for confidential votes. My official approval as DD is pending, so I cannot add my