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

Reply via email to