> On Nov 3, 2018, at 12:38 AM, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 3, 2018, at 12:20 AM, Tim Peters <tim.pet...@gmail.com >> <mailto:tim.pet...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> [Tim] >>>> Nevertheless, I probably won't vote - I object to public ballots on >>>> principle. That's been raised by others, so I won't repeat the >>>> arguments, and I appear to be very much in a minority here. >> >> [Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com >> <mailto:ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com>>] >>> Would it help if we only published who voted, and kept their votes >>> private? Publishing the actual votes probably doesn't make a >>> big difference here, relative to the broader Python/tech community. >> >> That would probably be enough to convince me to vote, but I don't want >> to hold things up either. If I'm the only one, why bother? It's not >> like my vote will change the result ;-) >> >> BTW, the years I was on the PSF Board, I always wanted everyone to >> know how we voted on everything. But I was elected to that position, >> so was voting as a representative of those who elected me. >> >> But nobody has any more business knowing how I vote on a PEP than, >> say, how I vote for the local mayor. That's between me and my >> conscience. Your vote is between you and yours, and I want actively >> _not_ to be able to see how others voted. >> >> Although I'm all in favor of making the PEP ballots public, if >> stripped of personally identifying info. >> _______________________________________________ > > > FWIW I tend to agree with Tim on public vs private ballots, although unlike > him I don’t feel strongly enough to abstain from voting on this one > particular vote. > > On a practical matter, keeping the ballots secret will rely on either having > a trusted person to tally the election results or using some software that > will do it for us. There is https://civs.cs.cornell.edu > <https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/> which we could use that does offer private > ballots and offers making the ballots (with or without a name attached to > them) public. It doesn’t support “pure” Condorcet but it should be easy > enough to take the public but anonymous ballots and compute to determine if > there was a condorcet winner or if one of the methods had to break a cycle, > and if there wasn’t a condorcet winner, just re-run the election. Beyond > that, I’m not sure what other options there are for anonymous ranked voting.
Oh, unfortunately this also doesn’t allow publishing *Who* voted without attaching them to a ballot, it’s either public, attached to the ballot, or private (if you’re not publishing the names, the system doesn’t even keep them, it just generates unique voter IDs for each).
_______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
