> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
Don> Without minimizing the totally unacceptable harassment that
Don> occurred, all three of you seconded the proposals and were
Don> significantly more visible than a voter listed on the tally
Don> page.
My suspicion is that if Debian had mad
Don Armstrong writes:
> I'm likely biased because I'm in a privileged position and rarely have
> to deal with concerted harassment directed specifically at me, so I
> might be minimizing the real fear people have because I personally
> haven't experienced it.
This is almost exactly my concern.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Richard Laager wrote:
> On 2/14/22 09:53, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > Steve certainly found feedback he got to be harassment.
> > I did as well.
>
> I received some harassment (not a lot, but some) over this too. My
> recollection is this was coming from non-DDs.
Without minimizin
On 2/14/22 09:53, Sam Hartman wrote:
Steve certainly found feedback he got to be harassment.
I did as well.
I received some harassment (not a lot, but some) over this too. My
recollection is this was coming from non-DDs.
Given the levels of harassment that others were talking about at the
t
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
> Don> If we make all votes secret we should require that the voting
> Don> system used enables voters to validate that their vote was
> Don> correctly recorded and tabulated in the final vote count.
>
> Not
Felix...
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:42:43AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
>
>All of them were condemned by later generations: the Salem witch hunt;
>McCartyism; the cultural revolution in China; collectivisation under
>Pol Pot in Cambodia; and perhaps most infamously the many attempts
>over time to
Hi,
Please allow me to clarify three things for casual readers of my earlier post.
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:56 AM Philip Hands wrote:
>
> If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on
> the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject
> such toxic
On 2022-02-13 16 h 28, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 2) Do not require that votes be conducted by email.
I see the general value in such a GR and wouldn't be against secret
votes if people can iron-out the feasibility problems.
I'm not sure removing the line about voting by email is relevant to this
G
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:56 AM Philip Hands wrote:
>
> If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on
> the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject
> such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their
> toxicity using measures
Philip Hands writes:
> I can imagine being fearful of that too, but what I'm interested in is
> whether we have any evidence of that fear being justified.
> If it is actually the case that any of our votes have been followed by
> people giving one-another grief over their vote, that is one thing
> "Don" == Don Armstrong writes:
Don> We should also enable independent tabulation,[1] which you get
Don> automatically when votes are not secret. [Devotee enables this
Don> currently as well, but future non-devotee systems might not.]
I think the following text already in the con
Stefano Rivera writes:
> Hi Philip (2022.02.14_13:55:45_+)
>> Under what circumstances are we expecting people to think that letting
>> other DDs know how they voted is going to be against their interests?
>
> From the discussions around recent GRs, I saw that there were community
> members w
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> [*] I do want to acknowledge, however, that having the
Russ> *capability* for verification even if almost no one uses it
Russ> routinely does provide real protection against shenanigans,
Russ> since it means should anyone suspect shenaniga
Hi Philip (2022.02.14_13:55:45_+)
> Under what circumstances are we expecting people to think that letting
> other DDs know how they voted is going to be against their interests?
From the discussions around recent GRs, I saw that there were community
members who were uncomfortable making their
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> >> > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
> >> > to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?
> >
Le 14/02/2022 à 14:55, Philip Hands a écrit :
Antonio Terceiro writes:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
so would one way of addressing the concerns of
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Antonio Terceiro writes:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> >> > so would o
Antonio Terceiro writes:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
>> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
>> > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
>> > to mak
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
> > to make the tally sheet only available
Hi,
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
Debian Developer non uploading
Community team member
Accessibility team member
debian-l10n-french team member
President of Debian France non-profit organization
Le 14/02/2022 à 12:01, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
I don't actually car
On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?
I very much agree with the above.
I don't se
Sam Hartman writes:
> Rationale
> =
>
> During the vote for GR_2021_002o, several developers said they were
> uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
> and ballot ranking would be public.
I know that was said in the discussion at the time, but I wonder to
22 matches
Mail list logo
