On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Edward Leafe <e...@leafe.com> wrote: > After the nominations close, the election officials will assign each > candidate a non-identifying label, such as a random number, and those > officials will be the only ones who know which candidate is associated with > which number.
I'm really uneasy about this suggestion. Especially when it comes to re-election, for the purposes of accountability I think it's really important that voters be able to identify the candidates. For some people there's a difference in what they say and what they end up doing when left calling shots from the bubble for too long. As far as the other stuff... idk if familiarity == bias. I'm sure lots of occasions people vote for people they know because they *trust* them; but I don't think that's bias? I think a more common problem is when people vote for a *name* they recognize without really knowing that person or what they're about. Or perhaps just as bad - *not* voting because they realize they have on context to consider these candidates beyond name familiarity and an (optional) email. I think a campaign period, and especially some effort [1] to have candidates verbalize their viewpoints on topics that matter to the constituency could go a long way towards giving people some more context beyond "i think this name looks familiar; I don't really recognize this name" -Clay 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-October/104953.html <- "role of the TC and your priorities"; seems like a reasonable thing for someone to be able to answer about folks they're putting in the top six slots in the voting card!
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
