Le mercredi 15 août 2012 19:28:12, Michael P. Gerlek a écrit : > Someone asked the Board (off-list) why we do not publish the results of our > elections in detail -- such as how many votes there were for each > candidate, including any candidates that weren't elected. > > I'm not sure if our bylaws require secret ballots, but that has been our > process since the Foundation began.There are clearly pros and cons both > ways for this. If we were fully transparent, everyone see who voted for > whom and there would be no possibility of cheating. By keeping votes > private, on the other hand, we allow people to candidly express their > feelings without feeling any social pressures. > > It's not clear to me that the community favors a change from our current > secret ballot process, but I know it has been asked about before over the > years and I know at least one person raised a question about the lack of > transparency in our last round of voting. If you feel strongly about this > please feel free to start a thread about it and we'll see what the > consensus is. > > PS- I can say that 98 of the 144 charter members voted in this last > election.
(I trust the CRO to do their job honestly, so the following is just some idea, not a personnal requirement) I haven't investigated that if there are reliable and independant organizations that could manage OSGeo ballots, but for better transparency, the result of all votes could be published in a web page, without the name of the voter of course, so that every voter can at least verify if their own vote has been properly taken into account. That could be something as simple as the following : Voter 1: Candidate 1A Candidate 1B Candidate 1C Candidate 1D Candidate 1E Voter 2: Candidate 2A Candidate 2B Candidate 2C Candidate 2D Candidate 2E [...] Voter N: Candidate NA Candidate NB Candidate NC Candidate ND Candidate NE So that would be still secret ballot, but with public results. Like standard ballots. Hum, with a bit of extra thinking, in an enhanced version of the above, you would publish this like : Voter 1 [unique_identifier_privately_given_by_the_voter_to_the_CRO]: Candidate 1A Candidate 1B Candidate 1C Candidate 1D Candidate 1E etc... The unique_identifier_privately_given_by_the_voter_to_the_CRO could be for example the SHA1 of any random text that the voter would have selected, like : $ echo "here is Even's vote and now some random text that nobody can guess zeaklrfjkgaoiejrmlkjf415646." | sha1sum 8d486b0387ffc57e65ff6e31ac0be69dba266334 - (I originally imagined that the identifier could be given by the CRO, but if the CRO isn't honest, he could give the same identifier to two persons who have made the same candidate choices, and they wouldn't be able to distinguish their ballot) That way, you can clearly identify your vote in the list if there are several people who made the same candidate choices. Well, the above idea has certainly its flaws. AFAIK, all electronic voting have their flaws... > > -mpg > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss