Hi! Richard Hartmann: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:27 AM Ulrike Uhlig <ulr...@debian.org> wrote: > [...] >> Anthony Towns: > [...] > >>> Having the boss's decision reviewed by people who report directly to >>> the boss is kind of a dodgy structure; and people on the new member >>> committee will probably want to maintain good relations with DAM, at >>> least if they want to continue doing new member work. >> >> I cannot see a problem here. The vote of NMC will be secret, so there is >> no way that DAM could know about who voted what. > > [...] > >>> (Another difference between the proposed process and court appeals is >>> that appeals courts can provide detailed opinions as to why the original >>> decision was wrong which helps avoid making the same mistakes in future; >>> this process doesn't really have that feature). >> There could be a _non-mandatory_ reasoning written by the NMC to DAM if >> a decision is overturned. > > Those two are mutually exclusive. > > Assuming best case and that the text is piped through Secretary to > avoid sender addresses: It would be an undue burden for dissenting NMC > members to find each other in a truly secret ballot, let alone have > them write something in a way which ensures DAM can't deduct from the > style of writing, points raised, and timing who's among the set of > people. Add that everyone in that group would know how many dissenting > votes there were so you even know how many dissenters you would need > to find.
Correct! Thanks for making it clear :) Cheers! u.
