I'm fine with that new approach of listing just the yeas, as we do not have abstentions as an option. I maintain that for transparency, being able to see the tally is essential, and therefore oppose restricting their public publication.
On 4 April 2026 12:31:36 CEST, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 at 09:24, Guus der Kinderen ><[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Flow, >> >> Thanks for following up. I want to make sure I understand the value you see >> in making tallies accessible to members specifically, because I'm not >> immediately seeing what it adds over publishing outcomes only. >> >> The concern driving this proposal is that vote counts create an >> uncomfortable experience for applicants, effectively ranking accepted >> members by how many people voted against them. That concern applies equally >> whether the audience is the general public or fellow XSF members: the >> applicant still ends up with a visible score attached to their membership. >> >> I can see a general argument for transparency to the membership >> (accountability of the voting body, trust in the process) but I'm not sure >> tallies specifically are what delivers that. Knowing that someone received >> 30 yes and 5 no votes doesn't tell us much without knowing who voted which >> way and why. > >A middle-ground here is also to just remove the "no" tallies (even >knowing they can be calculated). All we (and the bylaws) care about >for admission is the number of approvals being above the necessary >threshold ("Members shall be admitted upon the affirmative vote of a >majority of the Members of the Corporation voting. "). A 'no' is just >a lack of approval, but there are many reasons someone might not give >approval other than "I am actively against this person becoming a >member". > >For example, a member might vote "no" for an applicant they do not >recognise as participating in the community, and maybe that is their >personal threshold for giving approval. If this member votes "no", it >doesn't mean they are necessarily *against* the applicant if >sufficient other members approve (maybe the applicant works with XMPP >in projects that don't overlap with our hypothetical member). > >Calling it a "no" vote makes it feel like "actively against", while I >suspect the majority of such votes are the "lack of approval" kind >(more like a +0 than a -1). > >In summary, if people are against removing the published tallies >entirely, a side proposal is to replace the "Yes" and "No" columns >into a single "Approvals" column. > >And in fact, now that I've written this email, I just looked up the >latest minutes for reference and it seems Alex has already implemented >this (compare >https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2026-03-05#Announcement_of_Voting_Results >with >https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Meeting-Minutes-2025-03-06#Announcement_of_Voting_Results >). Not sure if I missed a discussion of this change already. > >I think the newer approach is better, and consistent with our bylaws >(possibly more consistent, because they do not describe negative votes >for membership at all). Thanks Alex! > >Regards, >Matthew
