1 avril 2021 17:01 "Kurt Roeckx" <k...@roeckx.be> a écrit: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 04:40:59PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:42:01PM +0000, Jean Duprat (Avignon) wrote: >> Votes in leadership elections are kept secret even after the end of >> the voting period for obvious reasons: by knowing that the ballot is >> secret, voters can feel free to express their opinion as they see >> fit. This constitutional guarantee sadly does not apply to General >> Resolutions. >> >> I think we're at opposite ends of the voting spectrum here on this >> matter, but I share your concern. >> >> In fact, I think that *any* position taken in this vote could result in >> targeted harassment of the voters. >> >> As this is a vote on a person (even if an indirect one, in the sense >> that is not an election), most democratic systems will treat it as a >> vote where ballots should be secret. But I fear that the Debian >> Constitution ties the hands of the secretary here, or am I missing >> something here Kurt? > > This would be a vote I would also like to see as secret. The > constitution says: > 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and > results are not revealed during the voting period; after the vote > the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast. The voting period > is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the Project > Leader. > > While for DPL election it says: > 5. The next two weeks are the polling period during which Developers > may cast their votes. Votes in leadership elections are kept > secret, even after the election is finished. > > You could say that "all the votes cast" could mean what was voted, > now who voted what, but I think that conflicts with the intention > of the text.
Could we get a Constitution Amendment GR passed along the lines of the following? Provided that 2*Q developers demand it, votes are kept secret after the vote ended. (en_* advice welcome) -- OdyX
