Re: FYI, Secret Ballots Proposal is Likely to Die for Lack of Support
Your secret ballots proposal had some other procedural housekeeping bits in it, like dealing with overrides for the secretary. How do you feel about the consensus on that? -- Richard
Re: FYI, Secret Ballots Proposal is Likely to Die for Lack of Support
> "Richard" == Richard Laager writes: Richard> Your secret ballots proposal had some other procedural Richard> housekeeping bits in it, like dealing with overrides for Richard> the secretary. How do you feel about the consensus on that? I think we're fairly close to a proposal there that the people who care about are happy with. I'd want Kurt to chime in. Personally, I don't know if those are important enough to vote on unless they are attached to something else. If people want me to propose that I'm okay doing so. --Sam
Re: FYI, Secret Ballots Proposal is Likely to Die for Lack of Support
Sam Hartman wrote: > Personally, I don't know if those are important enough to vote on unless they are attached to something else. I understand your point, but I'd still prefer that uncorrelated issues be discussed and voted separately. And since the Debian Constitution is such an important document, I'd warn against "fast-tracking" changes into it even if they seem "minor". I remember that some years ago what everybody thought was just an "editorial change" ended up actually having rather strong consequences. Please let's give proper thought to every change without running the risk that the "more important" hides the "less important", or that some people might vote a change that they wouldn't have voted on its own, just because it's attached to another one that they care more about. If the secretary override thing is not that important, let's just not vote it? Gerardo P.S. I'm not a DD so I can't second the GR, but for what it counts, I support secret votes.
Re: FYI, Secret Ballots Proposal is Likely to Die for Lack of Support
On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:34:09 -0700 Sam Hartman wrote: > I'd want to see several additional people express support on > debian-vote before I'd feel comfortable proposing a GR. Sam, I was unaware of the discussion taking place but very much support your efforts towards secret ballots. Every voter should feel free to express their opinion without fear of reprisals. In the real world that often requires secret ballots, as demonstrated by the election process in numerous democratic countries. Debian is no exception: for the RMS GR I ended up spending more time considering whether or not to actually cast my vote than it took me to make up my mind about the options on the ballot. pgpE25sg4MexE.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: FYI, Secret Ballots Proposal is Likely to Die for Lack of Support
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 03:34:09PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote: > > My take is there's not currently enough support on debian-vote to bring > it to a vote. > I'd want to see several additional people express support on debian-vote > before I'd feel comfortable proposing a GR. Hi Sam, thank you very much for your time spent on this issue. I really would like all votes to be anonymous in principle. Last year I blogged about the possibility to crunch our vote data and cluster DDs by affinity. While I did not manage to do it myself, I am uncomfortable with the idea that we provide machine-readable data that makes this kind of approach likely to succeed one day. http://charles.plessy.org/Debian/debi%C3%A2neries/DebianAnalytica/ Maybe the GR does not need to go deeply on the technical details and can simply state the principles, define who choses the implementation, and to what extend the final process can deviate from perfection. I do not mind making a couple of concessions with practical challenges, and if a few people have need to transiently access deanonymised data to prove that there was no fraud, no problem. I think that after enough time for the results to be accepted, the deanonymised data should be just deleted. I think that we can also remove the tally sheets from the past votes from our public servers. Sure, they will stay forever in the Internet Archive, but the point is that the amount, kind and scope of the data that we publish ourselves should match our view about pricacy. Not sure if we really have a consensus but I think that we should refrain from publishing personal data that does not serve a significant purpose. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles
