Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

[Stéphane Glondu]

Le 26/02/2022 à 23:22, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>> 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;

Should Belenios (of which I am upstream) be chosen, I think some
adaptations (and plumbing) will be needed.

In Debian, every voter has a GPG key... This could be leveraged to
simplify things while retaining other security properties.

In Belenios, the primary voting interface is web-based, but its design
allows for other interfaces. For example, there exists a command-line
tool to create ballots, that can be submitted by whatever means to an
election board.

There is also the notion of "trustee", a person who is in charge of
keeping a share of the secret key used to decrypt ballots. The Secretary
comes to mind, but ideally there should be several independent trustees
(maybe the Technical Committee?).

But maybe we should wait for the principle of secret ballots to be
adopted before discussing implementation details...


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

[Sam Hartman]

> "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:

>> However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to
>> change how we collect votes.

Don> I don't want it to take a 3:1 majority to add additional
Don> methods (web based, I'm presuming), but I think not allowing a
Don> signed (and/or encrypted) emailed ballot to count should
Don> require a 3:1 majority. [

Okay, then I recommend that you work on a ballot option.
I agree with Pierre-Elliott that the constitution is not where we should
specify the details of how to vote.


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]

[Don Armstrong]

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]

[Holger Levsen]

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

Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

[Pierre-Elliott Bécue]

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: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

[Kurt Roeckx]

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

Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

[Richard Laager]

On 2/25/22 09:06, 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.


This feels almost like a tautology of sorts... you're telling the 
Secretary to make good decisions.


If (hypothetically at some point in the future) we don't trust the 
Secretary, we should do something about that.


If the Secretary makes a bad decision, we have mechanisms to deal with 
that (and are actively improving those mechanisms here).


This particular statement of the day doesn't seem to really be binding, 
and even if it is, "sufficient" is subjective.


--
Richard


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

[Sam Hartman]

> "Don" == Don Armstrong  writes:

Don> Rationale: e-mail should continue to be an option for casting
Don> votes even while alternative methods of casting ballots might
Don> also be allowed.

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.

2) It needs sufficient project support to drop email voting.  That
shouldn't be something the secretary does all on their own.
I'm sure Kurt wouldn't, but I also understand the desire to write these
things down.

However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to change how
we collect votes.
Whether I can vote by email just isn't as important as the DFSG, , our
commitment to our users and free software, or the
separation between DPL and DAM to me, or the idea that I can never be
forced to do Debian work.

I suspect that it would take a GR to change how we conduct votes, but I'd
prefer not even to require that.
If someone leads a discussion that reaches a rough consensus that some
other voting system is good enough, I don't see why we'd need to have a
GR at that point.

I think there are two reasons why we might want to adjust our voting.
First, there's the anonymous voting systems people have been talking
about.
I personally don't care about that, but I also don't want to add stop
energy to the work of others.

The second is that a number of developers do have trouble voting.
In past elections where some parties wanted to strongly encourage voting
we've seenn people write software to help developers fill out ballots.
Now, I admit that in the instance I'm thinking of, a significant chunk
of the motivation appeared to be political.
But I've certainly helped other Debian developers cast their ballots.
Even for people who do regular packaging work, getting GPG working in a
mainly Windows or gmail mail flow is a pain and is not easy.
And sure, while going through NM, obviously these people did have some
solution to generate GPG signed mail regularly.
But it's not clear that participating in one election is enough of a
motivation to get  that all working again.

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.
In Debian we've generally embodied the principle that those doing the
work get significant latitude in how the work gets done.
To me, mandating email voting in the constitution is us telling the
secretary how to do their job, potentially  ruling out options that make
their work harder and are demotivating.
It also means that we need more bureaucracy for change.

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.

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

1) Update the rationale

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'd be happy to draft text for those two items if that would address
your concern without creating a 3:1 super majority to change how we
conduct voting.
--Sam


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]

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> I propose the following amendment to this ballot option, which if
> rejected I propose as its own option:

Just for clarity's sake for everyone following, since this process is now
a bit different, there is no longer a formal amendment process like this.
You just propose another ballot option directly.  Sam can amend his
proposal provided that all of the current sponsors agree, but that doesn't
require anyone else to make a formal amendment and it's unrelated to the
ballot options.

That doesn't change anything about how you proposed this, but it does mean
that the next steps are a tiny bit different than they were.  Sam can
indicate whether he intends to do that or not, and if not, you'll want to
propose a full ballot option (in other words, will probably want to
duplicate more of Sam's text or refer to the other option similar to how
Wouter did in the last GR).

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)