Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm supportive of a change here, and let's see if we can work out > something that we both like. IN particular, I agree with the > following: > > 1) As long as it make sense, we should continue to support email voting. [...] > However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to change > how we collect votes. I don't want it to take a 3:1 majority to add additional methods (web based, I'm presuming), but I think not allowing a signed (and/or encrypted) emailed ballot to count should require a 3:1 majority. [The former potentially allows more valid voters to vote, the latter potentially reduces who can vote.] [...] > And yes, I agree with you that a lot of the ways I personally would > work on fixing that problem would still make it easy to accept email > ballots. Worst case, the secretary would just have to set up two voting systems, and import the results from one system into the other. [Kind of a pain, but at least until we have a few votes under our belts with a new system, it seems warranted. If I'm wrong, and everyone prefers the new system, and there are no (or acceptable few) e-mailed votes, a constitutional amendment should be easy.] [...] > So, I'm wondering whether it would be enough to make it clear that > changing the voting system beyond doing what we do for DPL discussions > requires adequate project consensus. [...] > 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional > amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to > obtain sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works. The secretary would still have to run a vote to make a statement of the day, so it might as well still require a supermajority. [Alternatively, we could write in a self-deleting section which only required a majority to remove its effect... but that seems complicated.] On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer > required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people > like it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see > about how we pick a different system, or not, later. Looks interesting. I know (having hacked up devotee to make pocket-devotee) that the plumbing around these systems is complicated; I'd certainly love to see a solution which has a larger community contributing to it. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_]
Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 04:54:30PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > I propose the following amendment to this ballot option, which if > rejected I propose as its own option: > > modified english/devel/constitution.wml > @@ -266,7 +266,8 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later. > > > > -Votes are cast in a manner suitable to the Secretary. > +Votes are cast by email in a manner suitable to the Secretary. > + Non-email methods suitable to the Secretary may be used in addition to > e-mail. > The Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change > their votes. > > > https://salsa.debian.org/don/webwml/-/commit/9bbc20fed6881fa5b239830cad0939b979bbe300 > > Rationale: e-mail should continue to be an option for casting votes even > while alternative methods of casting ballots might also be allowed. seconded. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ „Copyright is for losers ©™“ (Banksy) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
yes, GRs to change the voting tooling are sensible (Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification)
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:34:01AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > While I'm personally probably more worried about how calls for votes are > disseminated than about how the voting mechanism itself works, the > proposed change feels like a slippery slope towards the possibility that > how voting happens becomes generally less well understood. Requiring a > GR to change the mechanism seems like a completely reasonable way to > both vet the proposed change, and ensure a maximum number of potential > voters understand what's changing. same here. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ :wq signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]
Kurt Roeckx wrote on 26/02/2022 at 12:47:16+0100: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:06:20AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: >> >> 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional >> amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain >> sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works. > > I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer > required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people like > it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see about > how we pick a different system, or not, later. Stéphane could really give you some insigihts, here. I don't know if that's in the scope of this GR, but I'd expect the technical choice of the voting system to not be constitutionally defined. I'd expect the constitution to set some unavoidable requirements, but not define the exact technical tool, which could be set in a DEP. Cheers, -- PEB signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:44:10PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > "Pierre-Elliott" == Pierre-Elliott Bécue writes: > > Pierre-Elliott> I sponsor the resolution quoted below. > > I haven't gone and checked signatures, but unless someone's signature is > bad or something, I think that gives us more than enough sponsors. Yes, there are more then enough people, and all signature checks passed. But I will need more time to properly process everything. Kurt
Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 08:06:20AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional > amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain > sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works. I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people like it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see about how we pick a different system, or not, later. Kurt
