New member process performance and issues (Fwd: SPI Member application for Filipus Klutiero)
Hi, On 2015-06-28, I applied for SPI membership. I did not obtain any followup until 2016-02-03, when I received the forwarded mail. After such a delay, my interest in SPI was low. I thought that was a big incident, and felt comforted to think that the processing time for my application was not representative. I thought my application would now be processed swiftly. Yesterday, my application, managed by Martin Zobel-Helas, was finally processed, and I was invited to vote in the 2016 board election, which revived my interest in SPI and prompted me to visit its discussion forums. To my surprise, I could not find any mention of the issue discovered in February, even checking on spi-general (although there are a couple of mails titled "New members website / inactive contributing member cleanup", which, while they apparently do not treat this issue, seem related). This is why I am hereby forwarding the mail I received in February, even though I have no idea how many applications were affected. I rarely apply for membership in a software project, but it was unprecedented for me to apply to an opaque process like the SPI's without being requested to do so. I wanted to send a mail to report my experience, but I now realize that SPI actually has statistics about the process's performance on https://members.spi-inc.org/stats These statistics follow: NC Applicants Pending Email Approvala NC Members b Contrib Membership Applications c Contrib Members d Application Managers11 I do not precisely understand what each of these metrics means, but this would certainly be most relevant for those wondering whether they should apply for membership. Unfortunately, this page is not accessible when not logged in. Could this be intentional? Forwarded Message Subject:SPI Member application for Filipus Klutiero Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:03:57 + From: SPI Membership Committee To: chea...@gmail.com Dear Filipus Klutiero, It has come to our attention that at some point (possibly some time ago) you application for SPI contributing membership. However due to an issue in the way the membership site worked it was possible to do this before you had verified your email address and thus become a non-contributing member. This has now been rectified, both to make it clearer when logging in that email verification is pending and also to prevent a contributing membership application before that stage is complete. However your application is still in this limbo state. Should you wish to proceed with your SPI contributing membership application please click on the following link to verify your email address: https://members.spi-inc.org/verifyemail?emailkey=a808a96634dd9102c7f144ba8e27d5e8 Alternatively go to: https://members.spi-inc.org/verifyemail And enter a808a96634dd9102c7f144ba8e27d5e8 as the verification code. There is no need to resubmit your contributing application itself; once you have validated your email it will enter the queue of applications for the membership committee to process. If you do not wish to proceed with SPI membership you can ignore this email. Apologies for the delay getting this issue resolved. -- The SPI Membership Committee ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
Hi Ian, On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote: [...] This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y, which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself. I fail to see how the system could infer any preference about Y from a ranking which does not mention Y, and I certainly do not see how this would constitute an extremely serious deficiency. Condorcet is more targeted for democracies and it may not be ideal here, but I am not convinced that STV (which I do not remember precisely) would be better. STV would certainly better reflect the diversity of our views, but that does not mean it will lead to choices closer to the choices which votes from the whole electorate would yield. [...] -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system for elections
On 2016-07-19 09:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Voting system for elections"):
On 2016-07-18 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is especially true given that our variant of Condorcet is still
interpreting a ballot "1. Z 2. X" as not preferring Z or X to Y,
which is IMO an extremely serious deficiency in itself.
I fail to see how the system could infer any preference about Y from
a ranking which does not mention Y, and I certainly do not see how
this would constitute an extremely serious deficiency.
Every other voting system anywhere on the planet treats a ballot
mentioning only X as preferring X to all other candidates.
Well, a preferential system should not *allow* such a ballot in the first place.
Every other preferential voting system treats a ballot ranking X 1st,
and Y 2nd, as a preference for X or Y over all other candidates.
That is how voters expect these systems to work.
Our voting system treats a ballot mentioning only X as expressing no
preference whatsoever.
This particular concern seems to be a simple user interface issue. Our system
should not allow a ballot mentioning a single option.
Evidently, the voting interface could use a lot of work.
I do not see a good reason to change the system in this concern.
Ian.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue #0 - No general-purpose issue tracking system
According to Joshua D. Drake, SPI has an issue tracking system for reimbursements, but not for other issues (see http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003466.html ). If there is already a genera-purpose ITS, this is indeed far from obvious. Therefore, in the absence of such a tracker, I am using this email to officially request SPI to put in place an issue tracker for all issues, or for issues which are not already covered by a dedicated tracker. Unfortunately, the one ITS engine I liked using is Atlassian JIRA, which is not free software. I have been unsatisfied with all open source engines I used. I have no strong opinion on which engine should be picked. Obviously, having a web interface would be extremely important, particularly one which is not read-only, though email notifications are very useful. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue #1 - Allow public access to membership statistics
SPI has "non-contributing members" and "contributing members". Contributing members have access to statistics about SPI's membership. The page with these statistics includes 4 metrics: NC Applicants Pending Email Approval, NC Members, Contrib Membership Applications and Contrib Members. A description of these metrics was provided by Jonathan McDowell in http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003467.html This page is not accessible to the public at this time. While I hope the status of membership could be much more transparent, making these statistics public would be a good and easy first step. I am hereby asking to make the existing metrics available to anyone. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: New member process performance and issues (Fwd: SPI Member application for Filipus Klutiero)
Hi Jonathan, On 2016-07-17 15:46, Jonathan McDowell wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:31:23AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: On 2015-06-28, I applied for SPI membership. I did not obtain any followup until 2016-02-03, when I received the forwarded mail. After such a delay, my interest in SPI was low. I thought that was a big incident, and felt comforted to think that the processing time for my application was not representative. I thought my application would now be processed swiftly. Yesterday, my application, managed by Martin Zobel-Helas, was finally processed, and I was invited to vote in the 2016 board election, which revived my interest in SPI and prompted me to visit its discussion forums. To my surprise, I could not find any mention of the issue discovered in February, even checking on spi-general (although there are a couple of mails titled "New members website / inactive contributing member cleanup", which, while they apparently do not treat this issue, seem related). This is why I am hereby forwarding the mail I received in February, even though I have no idea how many applications were affected. I sent out these mails; there were fewer than 10 affected - I don't have the exact numbers to hand, but it was a sufficiently low number that I felt contacting those affected directly was sufficient. Additionally in my work on the replacement members site I've had a very low amount of feedback to anything I've posted to the lists, so I haven't felt it was worth my while pointing out the inadequacies of the old system which are now rectified. Thank you I rarely apply for membership in a software project, but it was unprecedented for me to apply to an opaque process like the SPI's without being requested to do so. I wanted to send a mail to report my experience, but I now realize that SPI actually has statistics about the process's performance on https://members.spi-inc.org/stats These statistics follow: NC Applicants Pending Email Approvala NC Members b Contrib Membership Applications c Contrib Members d Application Managers11 I do not precisely understand what each of these metrics means, but this would certainly be most relevant for those wondering whether they should apply for membership. a = those who have applied, but failed to confirm their email address by clicking on the link in the initial email sent on sign up. If you are in this state and login it should be clear your address is not verified. b = Non-contributing members. Those who've completed email verification but either not applied to or not completed the contrib membership process. c = Applications for contributing membership that are still in progress. All of these members will be included in "b". d = Members who have completed the contributing membership process and are permitted to be subscribed to -private and vote. Application Managers are those who are capable of handling applications sitting in "c". Most of them are inactive. Thank you Unfortunately, this page is not accessible when not logged in. Could this be intentional? All of the membership system other than signup requires a login; it is trivial to obtain this so perhaps there's an argument to open up the stats to non-authenticated logins but I've never seen a request for it. I did that in thread "Issue #1 - Allow public access to membership statistics": http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003496.html -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: 2016 SPI board elections
Hi Joshua, On 2016-07-16 18:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 07/16/2016 06:58 AM, Philippe Cloutier wrote: Greetings to all, and in particular to those I have not had the chance to collaborate with yet. Yesterday I became a SPI member, apparently thanks to Martin Zobel-Helas, just in time for the 2016 SPI board elections, in which I was able to vote. Welcome! Joshua D. Drake Just one comment on a specific statement, Joshua's. It contains: Getting business items in order such as proper insurance and professional services. What this means is vague for me (I fail to see what "business items" means concretely). Concretely, the corporation is not properly protected against potential hostile or negligent action. This protection usually comes in the form of Limited Liability and Director's an Officers insurance. That is still quite abstract for me (What kind of "hostile action" are we concerned with?). [...] General Most statements say a lot more about what one has done than about what one intends to do. There's still one easy information about who candidates are which is usually missing : their age. I am not sure that age is relevant but I am 43. Thank you I am more interested in a candidates willingness to participate, be effective and move the corporation forward versus whether they are 22 or 65. Me too. Below a certain age, lack of maturity may make a candidature a lot less interesting. But in the end, it seems that all candidates in the last election had plenty of maturity. To clarify, that question only came to me when reading one specific platform. I was just suggesting this because it is trivial to include this information, not because it is particularly lacking. I ranked candidates based on what their statements said about their achievements, their goals, and my prior perception of them. Being a long-time Debian developer, my ranking surely shows some bias. I was hoping for commitments to transparency but did not read much on that. I would argue that transparency is implied. We are a U.S. based non-profit and the rules are pretty clear. Every member is able to attend every board meeting, all of our resolutions and financial matters are public etc... While there is a large part of our operations which is transparent, I did not suspect that such a part was not. From the 5 mailing lists, 3 are private. And the only private list I have access to seems to have more traffic than the public lists combined, if I trust the sample formed by the couple of weeks of presence I have. That would mean public discussions are a minority of SPI's mailing list discussions. The contact page gives only private contact adresses for the board, the officers and the website. The number of members is not available, nor is a list of these members, a list of members who requested to become contributing members, or the list of members whose contributing membership application was rejected. Passive transparency would be a great start, but some basic facts should also be published. For example, I cannot see SPI's staff. Issue tracking The desire to properly report this presumed issue brings me to a meta-issue: does SPI not have an issue tracking system? We do for reimbursements. Usually any feedback of that kind would go through the -private list. However, I could certainly see opening up a tracking system for other items, especially member concerns as a whole. That is a good idea. Thank you very much for that (and your other answers). I have formally requested SPI to implement such a system in thread "Issue #0 - No general-purpose issue tracking system": http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003493.html [...] -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Solved (Re: Issue #1 - Allow public access to membership statistics)
On 2016-08-01 05:06, Jonathan McDowell wrote: On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 06:43:37PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: SPI has "non-contributing members" and "contributing members". Contributing members have access to statistics about SPI's membership. This is inaccurate. *All* members have access to these statistics. The page with these statistics includes 4 metrics: NC Applicants Pending Email Approval, NC Members, Contrib Membership Applications and Contrib Members. A description of these metrics was provided by Jonathan McDowell in http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003467.html This page is not accessible to the public at this time. While I hope the status of membership could be much more transparent, making these statistics public would be a good and easy first step. I am hereby asking to make the existing metrics available to anyone. I see no reason not to make the stats public; anyone can easily sign up as a non-contributing member and see them, and we publish them yearly anyway. Done. Thank you Jonathan -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser
The way one can contribute to SPI's website is explained on http://www.spi-inc.org/ : This website is managed using ikiwiki+git. You can view the revision history via gitweb <http://git.spi-inc.org/gitweb/?p=website.git> and send any updates, either as a git pull request or a patch, to webmas...@spi-inc.org <mailto:webmas...@spi-inc.org>. Contributions would be much more appealing if there was a more intuitive way to modify, in particular for casual contributors. The web interface provided by a wiki or web content management system would provide such an appeal. This is a wide request which does not demand any particular wiki or CMS. Such a system could replace the current website or supplement it, consisting only of new pages. Wikis often use an engine-specific markup language to store page contents. One wiki engine which does that and whose language already benefits from an important diffusion among potential contributors is MediaWiki. MediaWiki allows contributors to propose a new version of a page which then needs to be approved before publication, but only with the FlaggedRevs extension. MediaWiki is unfortunately not in Debian testing currently. Drupal is another option, which is in Debian testing. This does not request any specific authorizations. Pages could use the soft security of open wikis, be only editable by SPI members, require approval by a team, or a mix of all of these policies depending on the topic. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser
On 2016-08-14 16:25, Jonathan McDowell wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:05:22AM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: The way one can contribute to SPI's website is explained on http://www.spi-inc.org/ : This website is managed using ikiwiki+git. You can view the revision history via gitweb <http://git.spi-inc.org/gitweb/?p=website.git> and send any updates, either as a git pull request or a patch, to webmas...@spi-inc.org <mailto:webmas...@spi-inc.org>. Contributions would be much more appealing if there was a more intuitive way to modify, in particular for casual contributors. The web interface provided by a wiki or web content management system would provide such an appeal. This is a wide request which does not demand any particular wiki or CMS. Such a system could replace the current website or supplement it, consisting only of new pages. Contributions to the SPI website went up significantly by moving from Plone to ikiwiki, and the website became much more current. Many thanks Jonathan; I had forgotten SPI previously used Plone. The Wayback machine shows that we switched from Plone to Ikiwiki in Q4 2010, but a quick search on Google did not find an analysis of that change, either anterior or posterior. Empirical evidence thus suggests we're much better off where we currently are. I don't remember ever contributing to a Plone website. I have no idea why the switch was made and whether it was beneficial, but I did not mean at all to suggest reverting it. Based on experience managing a number of wikis I think the workload involved in helping people who want to contribute at present but can't deal with ikiwiki is significantly lower than dealing with an open (or even approval based) wiki or CMS. I am not sure what you meant exactly by "deal", but recruitment of contributors unable to *use* the current system is not the main benefit I see. I was rather seeing a switch as a way to make contributing more appealing. As for the workload involved in dealing with wikis or CMS-s, were you referring to content administration? -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser
On 2016-08-14 21:27, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Jonathan McDowell [2016-08-14 21:25]: Contributions to the SPI website went up significantly by moving from Plone to ikiwiki, and the website became much more current. Empirical evidence thus suggests we're much better off where we currently are. Based on experience managing a number of wikis I think the workload involved in helping people who want to contribute at present but can't deal with ikiwiki is significantly lower than dealing with an open (or even approval based) wiki or CMS. Agreed. We're definitely open to contributors but we don't use a CMS and despite using ikiwiki the web site is also not a wiki. SPI's web site is a static web site generated with ikiwiki from Markdown. Thank you Martin. You also cannot edit debian.org directly, for example, but contributions are welcome. Same with SPI. Debian's situation is far from perfect despite important advances, but it is better than SPI's in a number of important ways. Specifically about the possibility to edit directly, while you are right if focusing on www.debian.org, that is not the case with wiki.debian.org, which would be approximately as important as www.debian.org, despite being quite newer. The git repository is available (there's a link from the front page) and you're welcome to send patches or pull requests. The webmaster email is also displayed for those wanting to provide feedback. If someone makes sustained contributions, I'm sure we'd be happy to give direct access to the git repo. While having to learn a new syntax is already quite a disadvantage, at least for me, having to send patches to an opaque system whose performance I cannot evaluate multiplies my hesitation. Knowing that a direct access would come would help, but only those who will make sustained contributions and who already know they will. If you meant to encourage contribution, I am not the person to address. Experience has taught me not to contribute in such conditions. Putting such a statement on the website *might* help. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser
Hi Bdale, On 2016-08-18 22:53, Bdale Garbee wrote: Filipus Klutiero writes: While having to learn a new syntax is already quite a disadvantage, at least for me It is for all of us... which is exactly why we moved to the ikiwiki+git combination... because at least at the time it used technology and skills that all of the board members were comfortable with, and enabling ourselves to be able to more easily contribute to the web content was a higher priority than enabling "others" who might not have the same skills to do so. I am not sure of your point, but as I wrote, I had forgotten that SPI previously used Plone. I did not mean to criticize the switch from Plone. I do not remember using Plone except as a visitor. I have no idea if the move was good, bad or irrelevant. The move may have been a good one, but having completed that change does not prevent going further. [...] Frankly, though, the fact that anyone can install the ikiwiki processor locally and apply it to a checked out copy of the web content git repository means that it may just be a better plan to assume that anyone who wants to contribute will be willing to "figure things out"... This may be repeating Joshua's informal message, but this seems to equate the capacity to learn with the desire to learn. I can probably learn Klingon, but I have no desire at all to do so. Even if everyone *could* contribute to the current website does not mean that everyone will be *willing* to learn how it is done (and to invest the time needed to setup the necessary environment). Bdale -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser
On 2016-08-20 12:20, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:55:48PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
On 2016-08-14 16:25, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
Based on experience managing a number of wikis I think the workload
involved in helping people who want to contribute at present but
can't deal with ikiwiki is significantly lower than dealing with an
open (or even approval based) wiki or CMS.
I am not sure what you meant exactly by "deal", but recruitment of
contributors unable to *use* the current system is not the main
benefit I see. I was rather seeing a switch as a way to make
contributing more appealing.
Are you saying that you think people don't contribute because of the
overhead of submitting changes to the ikiwiki+git system, rather than
because they don't understand it?
Not exactly. I am saying that people would contribute more if:
1. The knowledge required to contribute was less costly to learn, or already
more widespread
2. There was no need to setup a rare system to validate a suggested solution
before submitting it.
3. It could be determined before proposing a change whether the same
proposition is already waiting processing.
4. It could be determined before proposing a change whether the same
proposition was already made and rejected.
5. Proposing a change was less costly, indeed.
6. It was possible to receive a confirmation that a change was queued when
proposing it.
(As I initially conceded, some of these can be achieved without adopting a CMS
or wiki)
As for the workload involved in dealing with wikis or CMS-s, were you
referring to content administration?
I'm referring to the unfortunate way in which spammers attach themselves
to any uncurated website that allows anonymous or easy registration
submissions.
OK. As I wrote, this request does not demand to allow anonymous modifications.
In fact, I would be concerned with allowing anonymous modifications, except
*perhaps* on specific pages. As for easy registration submissions, the
registration process could be the same as the process to become a SPI member if
we are willing to restrict submissions to SPI members, which I consider most
reasonable (it would already be a lot more open). While allowing this might
cause more fraudulent registrations as SPI members, it would largely reduce the
proportion of legitimate changes going to webmas...@spi-inc.org.
I think we'd spend a lot more time cleaning things up if
the system in use allowed such things, and that the website as a whole
would suffer as a result - the negative impact of having to clean such
things up would seriously outweigh the drive-by improvements from people
who don't want to email webmaster@ or submit a Markdown patch.
Switching to a CMS or wiki does not necessarily mean we need to spend time removing spam.
Modifications from non-members do not need to be allowed, and if they are, they can be
set to not display by default ("pending changes").
And the advantages of solving this are not limited to "the drive-by improvements
from people who don't want to email webmaster@ or submit a Markdown patch", as you
describe them. Solving this optimizes the work of those people who are willing to
contribute in the current situation, and there are also indirect benefits. Every time we
ease contributing, we increase the number of contributions from newcomers who will build
a trust in the project's capacity to treat their contributions properly. And contributing
is also how contributors learn more about a project, which is necessary for them to
become better contributors.
2 of the 3 social production projects I contributed the most to are extremely
open and easy to contribute to. In both cases, I made my first contribution
from my browser.
The first one is Tiki, where I started doing issue triaging in an ITS which
could be manipulated from browser. When I was recruited as a developer, I said
I had no time to contribute more. Yet, a few months later I was learning the
implementation languages (PHP, Smarty and SQL, which are also relatively easy)
and becoming a top contributor, until I realized I had become addicted to that
project and resigned.
The other project is Wikipedia, which I did not want to contribute to for
several months, before I was so tempted to intervene that I created an account
and made a first comment. And of course, I then learned the syntax, the
policies, perfected my English, and made thousands of edits.
In both of these cases, I had no intention to become a regular contributor when
I made my first contribution. At that time, I would have bet that I would not
contribute thousands of hours to these projects. Perhaps it would have been
more efficient for me to learn the skills necessary to contribute to different
projects which were less open and easy to contribute to, but that is not what
happened, because I was never looking for a project
Issue #3 - Please clarify ways to contact Board of Directors
http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/ contains: To contact SPI, please send email to one of the following: * The SPI mailing lists <http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/> * The SPI Board of Directors <mailto:bo...@spi-inc.org> Where "SPI Board of Directors" is a link to bo...@spi-inc.org and "mailing lists" is a link to http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ which contains: Board List Membership of the spi-board list comprises current SPI board members only. * Subscription page <http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-board/> * Archive <http://lists.spi-inc.org/private/spi-board/> This eventually links to spi-bo...@lists.spi-inc.org It is unclear whether there is a difference between bo...@spi-inc.org and spi-bo...@lists.spi-inc.org, and if so, which difference. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser
Hi Neil, On 2016-08-23 11:00, Neil McGovern wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 09:02:22PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: On 2016-08-20 12:20, Jonathan McDowell wrote: Are you saying that you think people don't contribute because of the overhead of submitting changes to the ikiwiki+git system, rather than because they don't understand it? Not exactly. I am saying that people would contribute more if: Perhaps a bit of history may or may not be useful, as I was the one who installed plone. When I initially joined SPI, the entire site was run using a similar system that Debian uses - wml. Thank you, I had forgotten that too. The Wayback machine does show that SPI switched to Plone in August 2006. Thus, I decided along similar lines, with a similar lack of evidence, that a lower barrier to entry would encourage more people to contribute to the site. In hindsight, I was wrong. The number of contributors didn't magically increase because someone could type stuff in to a text box and have that submitted to review. It didn't increase because there wasn't the number of people who were willing to create content, and those who were didn't like dealing with a CMS. Not sure what you mean. Few contributors like dealing with whatever publishing system is in place. Of course reducing the barriers does not necessarily mean there will be an increase in the number of contributors. After I left the board, SPI moved to ikiwiki. This has a number of advantages over both plone and wml, and more importantly, is the choice of workflow from people who actually contribute. What do you mean by "is the choice of workflow from people who actually contribute"? The amount of extra overhead from running a CMS system (which is considerable) [...] What kind of overhead are you referring to? I'd urge the board to concentrate on things that matter to member projects [...] This is a little vague, but if you have concrete suggestions, thanks for proposing these in a different topic. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue #4 - Make membership (more) public
Following the resolution of issue #1 "Allow public access to membership statistics", anyone may now see statistics on SPI membership thanks to the 4 general metrics visible on https://members.spi-inc.org/stats Nevertheless, SPI's membership remains mostly private. It is not possible to tell whether someone is a member, to even confirm that a member is a member, to tell what kind of persons applicants and members are, or to tell which applications were rejected. Even members may only see their own applications. I request to make membership public or more public. I do not see what part of the information currently stored in applications could be private, so I think applications should be made public by default, but at a minimum, it should be possible for one to make its own applications public. Our associated project Debian already uses a web application which makes its membership a lot more public than SPI's, which can be seen at https://nm.debian.org/ This application is implemented in Python and licensed under the GNU AGPL: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/nm/nm2.git/tree/ The membership requirements of Debian and SPI are different, but I do not see SPI requirements which Debian does not have. Making applications public would: 1. make it much easier for potential members to evaluate whether applying is worth it. 2. provide the data necessary for members to take enlightened decisions about whether they should start evaluating applications or review the membership process 3. provide credit to application managers 4. easy identifying possible bugs in the application process -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Effect on corruption (Re: Issue #4 - Make membership (more) public)
Hi Ian,
On 2016-09-19 06:54, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Issue #4 - Make membership (more) public"):
I request to make membership public or more public. I do not see
what part of the information currently stored in applications could
be private, so I think applications should be made public by
default, but at a minimum, it should be possible for one to make its
own applications public.
I think someone ought to be able to be a contributing member of SPI
without that necessarily being public.
Bear in mind that our contributing members are our governing body, and
might be subject to pressure from (eg) employers to vote in particular
ways.
I am surprised to see the risk of corruption as an argument for keeping
membership private, when opening would also allow to study which organizations
are linked to SPI members. Are you aware of pressure from employers to
influence the votes of SPI contributors?
I doubt this is desirable, but if we only agree on an opt-out transparency, the
software powering nm.debian.org does not support that to my knowledge (but I
have only used that site to obtain information).
Ian.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list
http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ lists 5 mailing lists of SPI. Except for the first 2, there is no description of what content each has or should receive. The descriptions of spi-private, spi-projects and spi-board only describe their membership. spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list
Hi Martin, On 2016-10-04 14:33, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Filipus Klutiero [2016-10-01 12:49]: http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ lists 5 mailing lists of SPI. Except for the first 2, there is no description of what content each has or should receive. The descriptions of spi-private, spi-projects and spi-board only describe their membership. spi-projects is a list to which all the project liaisons of SPI associated projects are subscribed. It's used by the board to contact all project liaisons at the same time, e.g. to ask which projects participate in Google Summer of Code and want SPI to handle their payments or to get input from SPI projects on the SPI annual report. Thank you spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's also used as a contact address for the board. OK, but in terms of content, what discussions would be more appropriate to direct to spi-board than to, I guess, spi-general? Since the general public cannot subscribe to these lists, I don't think it makes sense to list them at http://www.spi-inc.org/contact/mailinglists/ It's just confusing. I think I'll add the links to the onboarding info for directors and liaisons instead (<http://spi-inc.org/corporate/onboarding/>). As you want, I have no strong opinion on that. spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions. Personally, I feel that spi-private has been overused and most of the conversation should have been on spi-general. spi-private should only be used for things that should not be public / publicly archived. I agree with you. From the approximately 100 mails sent to spi-private which I have read, I do not remember a single one which could not have been sent to spi-general (instead). Do you have a suggestion on how to improve the page to make this clearer? Can we find examples of topics which would be more appropriate to discuss on spi-private than on spi-general (or other currently existing lists)? Since we are not directly producing software, I do not see the interest of privacy for security, except insofar as we make use of potentially vulnerable software products. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list
On 2016-10-08 15:42, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/08/2016 09:38 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi Martin, Thank you spi-board is a list of the board of directors to communicate. It's also used as a contact address for the board. OK, but in terms of content, what discussions would be more appropriate to direct to spi-board than to, I guess, spi-general? Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue. Why would a potential legal issue be confidential? Do you know that there were discussions about that topic on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the volume? If not, do you have other examples of confidential topics which would be more appropriate for spi-board than for other lists? [...] spi-private is the only one I am member of. Board elections is one topic sometimes treated on that list, but a private list should not be designated as the proper forum for electoral discussions. Personally, I feel that spi-private has been overused and most of the conversation should have been on spi-general. spi-private should only be used for things that should not be public / publicly archived. I agree with you. From the approximately 100 mails sent to spi-private which I have read, I do not remember a single one which could not have been sent to spi-general (instead). I prefer -private because generally speaking, I am talking to voting members. The general public is great and there are times where that is appropriate but we are not an open source project. We are a corporation led by our members, with oversight by our board and run by our officers. I fail to get this. Transparency is not only relevant to open source projects. Sincerely, JD -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)
This replies to both Joshua and Peter. On 2016-10-10 13:08, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/10/2016 01:57 AM, Peter Cock wrote: Anything that is confidential. For example, a potential legal issue. Why would a potential legal issue be confidential? I would have thought legal issues should be private by default. e.g. Project X has noticed company Y appears to be using their software in breach of license and wants advice and legal assistance. Going public with allegations might be good strategy, but personally I would want to discuss this situation with lawyers privately first. I do not see why legal issues should be discussed privately, and I certainly think they should not be discussed privately by default. It is fine to discuss an eventual situation with lawyers first, but I fail to see why that would have to be done privately. As an example of a legal issue which could be public, I asked on behalf of Biopython (part of the Open Bioinformatics Foundation umbrella) about *getting* legal advice on changing our open source licence. SPI referred us to the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC). Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is fine to be public. However there are others that are not. Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of course, which has to be)? Sincerely, JD -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)
Hi Henrik, On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of course, which has to be)? Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just keep quiet until that date. henrik Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the frequency? If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example? -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)
Hi Joshua, On 2016-10-17 14:19, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/15/2016 06:57 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: This replies to both Joshua and Peter. Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is fine to be public. However there are others that are not. Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of course, which has to be)? A health issue of a board member. I suppose that was not an example legal issue, right? In any case, do you know if such an issue was already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the number of such discussions, say each decade? JD Sincerely, JD -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)
Hi Joshua, On 2016-10-26 21:20, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/26/2016 05:49 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi Joshua, On 2016-10-17 14:19, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/15/2016 06:57 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: This replies to both Joshua and Peter. Right so there are many types of legal issues. The one you bring up is fine to be public. However there are others that are not. Joshua, could you provide an example legal issue which is private (and, of course, which has to be)? A health issue of a board member. I suppose that was not an example legal issue, right? It is if we discuss it publicly. Are you saying that discussing a health issue of a board member on a public mailing list would present a legal issue? -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issues with public discussions of legal issues (Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list))
On 2016-10-26 21:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 10/26/2016 05:46 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi Henrik, henrik Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? If so, could you estimate the frequency? If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example? While I was on board there was at least one instance where we had to discuss something confidential with legal. Thanks Joshua There may have been others but the reality is, you can't talk about everything publicly. There are all kinds of issues when you do that including but certainly not limited to privacy laws, defamation laws, etc... I fail to see how defamation laws would prevent public discussion. Sincerely, JD -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)
On 2016-10-27 06:10, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: On 2016-10-18 08:57, Henrik Ingo wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Any matter, where a failure of the opposite side to act within a certain time will benefit or strengthen the position of the SPI member project or SPI itself. For example, any legal situation where a complaint needs to be raised by the opposite side within a certain date, and the strategy of SPI / the member project would be to just keep quiet until that date. Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? I was involved in one. If so, could you estimate the frequency? No. Mine was some time ago already, but also the only one I was involved in. (e.g. frequency is 100%, but that's not really an answer.) If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example? No, that's kind of the point :-) Thanks Henrik. I understand from your message that you consider that at least one discussion on spi-board was rightly kept private due to a particular legal risk, and that this discussion should remain private. I encourage those with access to spi-board's content to explain why such discussions should not be public, perhaps using examples from past discussions which no longer need to be private. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Topic of spi-board (Re: Issue #5 - Please explain the topic of each mailing list)
On 2016-10-27 08:46, Neil McGovern wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:46:42PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Was such a situation already discussed on spi-board? Certainly while I was on the board there was. Thanks Neil [...] If you do not know, could you provide a concrete example? Unfortunately not, as we were able to resolve the issue without going through the courts. How does resolution prevent from providing the issue as an example? In any case, note that I was asking for a hypothetical example. Which is kinda the point of dealing with things privately... Mediation does not have to be secret (and by the way, court proceedings are not necessarily public neither). -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Discussion topic (Re: SPI bylaws overhaul: new discussion draft)
Hi Jimmy, On 2016-11-16 13:03, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:27:22AM +, Luca Filipozzi wrote: On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 06:58:26PM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: On 11/15/2016 06:27 PM, Luca Filipozzi wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 11:36:52AM -0500, Hilmar Lapp wrote: One thing I’d submit for consideration that could be learned from this and change is to take the opportunity to put the text into Markdown (or LaTeX) format and host it in version control. Then the version control system does the diff, and presenting them, for you without any additional effort. Here’s an example from the most recent bylaws changes for OBF: https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/pull/28 https://github.com/OBF/obf-docs/pull/29 I understand that many in SPI have strong reservations about Github, but obviously Github is far from the only platform that allows doing this. I think that the salient points, here, are: - use a plain text 'source' format for the input - use a source code management system to capture revisions and produce deltas - publish the deltas so that the members can easily review the proposed changes - use a formatter to 'compile' the input into published representation We can achieve the above wthout having to use github. I'm perfectly happy to use Markdown and I'd prefer it to LaTeX. Or just use ODF with commenting? I'll admit a significantly stronger preference to Markdown (or other plain text input format) to ODF (ie XML) and the use of diff over 'track changes'. That said, I'm not editing the bylaws so I leave it to the those who are to decide. These discussions are only worth having in the context of hoping to make changes to the content of the bylaws. Accordingly, now that I've provided an automatic diff alongside my textual summary and am aware of the issue for the future, can we refocus this conversation on substantive feedback? I fear some people with substantive opinions may already have tuned out this thread based on how extended this comparison and formatting discussion has become. If there is concern that discussion about identifying the proposed changes is hurting discussion about the proposed changes, I recommend retitling subthreads about the former so the precise topic can be quickly determined. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: SPI bylaws overhaul: Board Attendence
Hi Josh, On 2016-11-16 14:03, Josh berkus wrote: Board: One chronic problem we have had with the SPI Board is failure to attend meetings causing board meetings to be recessed due to lack of quorum. As such, I would like to see some reference to a Board Attendence Policy in the new bylaws, e.g.: "The Board shall adopt a Board Meeting attendence policy which will require sitting board members to attend the majority of Board meetings in each year. Violation of this policy will cause the immediate removal of the board member with replacement per Section 7." Discussion? I do not think setting an arbitrary threshold is a good idea. Board attendance is one component of a member's value. I do not know this issue's importance. If the frequency of quorum issues is abnormally high, the issue may be in these meetings or in board composition. From the way you describe the board attendance issue, I suspect quorum may be excessively high. If you are convinced the issue is mostly one of board composition, I would recommend to start by facilitating the process of selecting members, by providing data on past attendance, at least for candidates who have already been members of the board. If we manage to collect such data, if the issue persists after the board is elected with access to attendance statistics, and if these statistics show abnormally low attendance and variability among members, then I would consider more drastic solutions. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)
Hi Joshua, Ian,
On 2017-02-28 12:57, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 02/28/2017 09:38 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On 02/28/2017 07:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board
elections [and 1 more messages]"):
Finally, SPI should not be in the business of voting system
innovation. Nor should SPI be in the business of doing our own
detailed analysis of voting systems, as you are doing. We should
leave voting system development, analysis, and recommendation, to
civil society organisations specialising in voting reform, such as
Fair Votes Canada and the UK Electoral Reform Society.
1 Billion times this.
I don't know whether you intended it that way, but in Ian's original
message, this was not a reply to anything I wrote.
Henrik,
My response was the affirm Ian's point that is all. Specifically:
[...]
* We should leave voting system development, analysis, and recommendation, to
civil society organisations specialising in voting reform, such as Fair Votes
Canada and the UK Electoral Reform Society.
I must object. Nothing other than resources prevents us from researching and
developing voting systems. It is correct that this is not our core business, but as
a decision-making organisation, improving our decision-making deserves investment.
It would be ideal if we could simply rely on organizations specialized in voting
systems R&D, but if the UK Electoral Reform Society is like Fair Vote Canada,
these two are unfortunately not going to help much.
The main issue of FVC is not to maximize representativeness, but simply to get
rid of FPTP given the challenges created by a population much less
knowledgeable about decision-making and much more traditionalist than SPI's, by
the constitution, and by the necessity to have the reform performed by a
government elected by FPTP. I have received tens of mails from FVC and none
discussed monotonicity or any technical point.
This was not a comment on the substance of Barak's claim.
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Concorcet methods (was Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections))
On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
[...]
AV's virtue over Condorcet is that Condorcet is very hard to count in
a nontrivial election without using computers. This means that
Condorcet is not suitable for high-stakes public elections.
The purpose of elections is not to count. You'll have to do better to show that
Condorcet is not suitable for high-stakes public elections.
(And it
explains why civil society orgnisations which care about public voting
reform don't advocate Condorcet-based systems.)
Unless that discusses specific civil society organisations which care about
public voting reform, that is quite wrong. I won't counter with a simplistic
explanation, but merely point out that most such organisations are interested
in multi-district elections.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)
On 2017-03-02 14:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
Ian and Joshua are dismissing these concerns, but have not given any
technical grounds, either now or in the previous round of discussion.
[...]
But the key point, as discussed, is that SPI is poorly equipped to
analyse voting systems. SPI is full of technologists. We largely
lack political scientists, electoral officials, constitutional
engineers, and historians; we're probably even short of game
theoreticians.
I doubt that constitutional engineers, historians and even many electoral
officials would be equipped much better than technologists to analyze voting
systems.
[...]
We should defer the question of voting systems to well-regarded civil
organisations for whom these questions are the primary focus, and who
are thereofore more competent: that means voting reform groups.
Almost uniformly, such groups recommend STV for multi-winner
elections.[0]
Voting systems have more than a single question. It may be that other
organisations can help with ours, but in that case, it would be more useful to
mention these organizations, and even more to show their recommendations.
For the same reason, we should adopt a system which is widely used,
particularly by organisations whose governannce we expect to be
well-informed.
If argumentum ad populum is going to be a central argument in our choice, I
hope our associated projects will not take their decisional strategies from
SPI, or I very much hope that we will pick an excellent system, otherwise our
associated projects may argue they should adopt SPI's suboptimal system. If
popularity is the main criteria, at least provide a list of these organisations
and the system each one uses.
[...]
We should not be pioneering in this area. We should make use of the
expertise of others, and follow their lead.
I wonder which pioneering this refers to.
You might be right on substance, but on the form, I am surprised to see such
insistence on an argument as weak as popularity.
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
STV (Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections))
Hi Dimitri, On 2017-03-03 11:26, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: On 2 March 2017 at 18:07, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: On 1 March 2017 at 13:47, Filipus Klutiero wrote: I have received tens of mails from FVC and none discussed monotonicity or any technical point. This was not a comment on the substance of Barak's claim. In my discussion of these issues, I did my best to give pointers to grounded technical information that shows that STV and even its underlying IRV are poor voting systems, which actually exhibit major pathologies in practice. (E.g., electing the least-preferred of the top three mayoral candidates in Burlington Vermont; messing up when presented with actual Debian Project Leader ballots; leading to long-term two-party domination in the legislature using STV in Australia.) [...] STV is a voting system that strives to achieve proportional representation, and that's a property which is desired for the SPI board as it is a long-standing observation that the board is disproportionally Debian member heavy. I would disagree with that. I would rather say that STV tries to improve the representativeness of representative bodies while maintaining a traditional / very simple system (although, its winner determination rules are arguably no longer "very simple"). [...] -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board elections)
On 2017-03-03 10:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
Barak A. Pearlmutter writes ("Re: Voting system R&D (Re: 2017 update to the SPI
voting algorithm for Board elections)"):
[stuff]
I've said all I want to say about choice of voting systems. It's
clear that you are not going to convince me; and that I am not going
to convince you.
Ian, if your beliefs are accurate, then I think it would be more efficient to
stop trying to convince Barak than to state these beliefs.
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system
Thank you Ian. Here are my remarks. On 2017-03-08 06:43, Ian Jackson wrote: [...] Ian. WHEREAS 1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such as SPI's Board Elections. Scrap this. It is superfluous and misleading (Condorcet can be fine in multi-winner elections; if this remark is based on more than how Condorcet is currently used by SPI, please elaborate). 2. SPI is not equipped to effectively design or analyse voting systems. We wish to adopt a system widely used elsewhere, and which is recommended by civil society organisations specialising in voting reform. 3. The Single Transferrable Vote is the only proportional voting system, suitable for SPI, which meets these criteria. The statement that STV is a proportional voting system is quite wrong. 4. The Scottish STV variant is clearly specified; we have an established and stable Free Software implementation of it; and it is straightforward to (re)implement. Other STV variants appear to lack some of these good properties. 5. Ian Jackson has offered to help with the implementation of STV for SPI. THEREFORE THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES 6. Future elections to the SPI Board will be counted according to the Scottish Single Transferrable Vote. Scottish STV will also be used by SPI for any other multi-winner election. 7. Specifically, the algorithm to be used is that specified in Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government Elections Order 2007 (a UK Statutory Instrument): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made 8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian. The choice of software is up to the Secretary. However, any differences between the Rules in the Order, and whatever software implementation is chosen, are to be resolved in favour of the Rules. 9. The SPI Secretary is requested to liase with Ian Jackson, so that the necessary changes to SPI software and infrastructure can be identified and implemented. Typo "liase" -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Condorcet whereas (Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system)
On 2017-03-08 09:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
Filipus Klutiero writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections
voting system"):
Thank you Ian. Here are my remarks.
On 2017-03-08 06:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such
as SPI's Board Elections.
Scrap this. It is superfluous and misleading (Condorcet can be fine in
multi-winner elections; if this remark is based on more than how Condorcet is
currently used by SPI, please elaborate).
Actually, your prompt leads me to observe that the paragraph is
inaccurate in the other direction.
The word "Condorcet" refers (everywhere else but SPI) only to a
single-winner system. The system previously used by SPI for Board
elections is a invention of SPI.
I think perhaps this paragraph should read:
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections, but
SPI's home-grown multi-winner Condorcet variant is seriously
lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such as
SPI's Board Elections.
That sounds redundant ("*multi-winner* system is problematic in *multi-winner*
elections").
Your disagreement seems purely terminological (I would say that a Condorcet
method can choose several winners, but these winners need to be a part of a set
offered as a single option, e.g. {President Ian Jackson, Secretary of State
Mike Pence}).
I still suggest simply dropping this whereas, or replacing with just "The voting
system used SPI's Board Elections should yield a board as representative as
possible.", but your suggestion is already much better, and non-misleading.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Whereas 1 (Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system)
On 2017-03-08 17:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
Josh berkus writes ("Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting
system"):
WHEREAS
1. SPI should elect its Board using a roughly-proportional voting
system. Condorcet is good for single-winner elections but is
seriously lacking in proportionality in multi-winner elections such
as SPI's Board Elections.
Please cut this paragraph and replace. As written, the paragraph is a
source of argument over factors which have little or nothing to do with
actually replacing the voting system. Frankly, it reads like a partisan
vendetta against concordet. I suggest instead:
1. SPI's concordet voting system is unique to our organization and
has had several issues over the years.
How about
1. SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to our
organisation and has several problems; notably, a lack of
proportionality.
?
I have no real problem with this version, though since SPI has no political parties, I am
not sure what proportionality means in our context. I am also hesitant about using
language like "our" in a resolution. Suggestion:
SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to SPI and has several
problems; notably, a potentially suboptimal representativeness.
[...]
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Proposed Board resolution for Board electoral system, version 20170309 (was Re: Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting system)
Thank you Ian.
On 2017-03-09 10:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Final proposed Board resolution for Board elections voting
system"):
NB that I will be offline on the 10th and 11th of March, and will have
only limited network access between then and the Board meeting. So if
there are any more comments, please make them ASAP.
There were some comments about the rationale, and about the clarity of
the paragraph stating the primacy of the official rules over the
software. I have updated para 1 and para 8, with the changes posted
previously. There is no change to the effect of the resolution.
Last call.
WHEREAS
1. SPI's voting system for Board elections is unique to our
organisation and has several problems; notably, a lack of
proportionality.
2. SPI is not equipped to effectively design or analyse voting
systems. We wish to adopt a system widely used elsewhere, and
which is recommended by civil society organisations specialising in
voting reform.
3. The Single Transferrable Vote is the only proportional voting
system, suitable for SPI, which meets these criteria.
4. The Scottish STV variant is clearly specified; we have an
established and stable Free Software implementation of it; and it
is straightforward to (re)implement. Other STV variants appear to
lack some of these good properties.
5. Ian Jackson has offered to help with the implementation of STV for
SPI.
THEREFORE THE SPI BOARD RESOLVES
6. Future elections to the SPI Board will be counted according to the
Scottish Single Transferrable Vote. Scottish STV will also be used
by SPI for any other multi-winner election.
7. Specifically, the algorithm to be used is that specified in
Rules 45-52 of the Scottish Local Government Elections Order
2007 (a UK Statutory Instrument):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2007/42/schedule/1/part/III/crossheading/counting-of-votes/made
8. The practical implementation will be by means of software; for
example, perhaps the openstv package in Debian. The choice of
software is up to the Secretary. However, any differences between
the the Rules in the Order referenced above, and whatever software
implementation is chosen, are to be resolved in favour of the
Rules.
Typo "the the"
9. The SPI Secretary is requested to liase with Ian Jackson, so that
the necessary changes to SPI software and infrastructure can be
identified and implemented.
The word "liase" should read "liaise".
Paragraphs 1 and 3 refer to the notion of proportionality, which has no clear
meaning in the context of elections without parties like SPI's.
I have no issues with substance.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: MediaWiki (Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website from browser)
On 2017-10-09 10:28, Ian Jackson wrote:
Philippe Cloutier writes ("MediaWiki (Re: Issue #2 - Allow contributions to website
from browser)"):
2016-08-14 11:05 GMT-04:00 Filipus Klutiero :
The way one can contribute to SPI's website is explained on
http://www.spi-inc.org/ :
...
Wikis often use an engine-specific markup language to store page contents.
One wiki engine which does that and whose language already benefits from an
important diffusion among potential contributors is MediaWiki. MediaWiki
allows contributors to propose a new version of a page which then needs to
be approved before publication, but only with the FlaggedRevs extension.
MediaWiki is unfortunately not in Debian testing currently.
MediaWiki is back in testing, and even back in Debian stable, though
only version 1.27, released on 2016-06-28.
Doesn't ikiwiki, which we are already using, have an online editing
plugin or some such ?
http://ikiwiki.info/features/
I haven't edited any ikiwiki instance in many years, but apparently, strangely called
"RecentChanges".
Yes, indeed.
Ian.
--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue #7 - Website does not show staff
I cannot find a list of SPI employees anywhere on spi-inc.org. A list indicating each employee's role and which would quantify each one's work would help determine if we should seek more, less or different staff. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Unofficial SPI Issue Tracking System (Re: Issue #0 - No general-purpose issue tracking system)
Hi, On 2016-07-30 10:55, Filipus Klutiero wrote: According to Joshua D. Drake, SPI has an issue tracking system for reimbursements, but not for other issues (see http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003466.html ). If there is already a genera-purpose ITS, this is indeed far from obvious. Therefore, in the absence of such a tracker, I am using this email to officially request SPI to put in place an issue tracker for all issues, or for issues which are not already covered by a dedicated tracker. Unfortunately, the one ITS engine I liked using is Atlassian JIRA, which is not free software. I have been unsatisfied with all open source engines I used. I have no strong opinion on which engine should be picked. Obviously, having a web interface would be extremely important, particularly one which is not read-only, though email notifications are very useful. Since I wrote this, one of my projects started using Redmine. I did not use it much and left that project several months ago, so I cannot recommend it with all my weight, but my memory indicates a good impression. Redmine is implemented in Ruby and a recent version is distributed in the stable and unstable suites of our associated project Debian (though not in testing, due to a serious bug reported 2017-11-14). I think it should be considered. Pending the creation of a proper general-purpose issue tracking system, I have created an unofficial and fully manual tracker at http://philippecloutier.com/Software+in+the+Public+Interest+Issue+Tracking+System+-+Unofficial It is a simple wiki page ediable by all, which currently links to reports made via mailing lists. By the way, I recommend to require report submitters to agree to licence their reports under a free licence (probably Creative Commons), and to confirm that any content in their report not created by them can be redistributed, so that cloning the ITS is not an issue. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Issue tracking system (was Re: Unofficial SPI Issue Tracking System (Re: Issue #0 - No general-purpose issue tracking system))
Hi Robert, On 2018-01-01 19:39, Robert Brockway wrote: On Mon, 1 Jan 2018, Filipus Klutiero wrote: Hi, On 2016-07-30 10:55, Filipus Klutiero wrote: According to Joshua D. Drake, SPI has an issue tracking system for reimbursements, but not for other issues (see http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003466.html ). If there is already a genera-purpose ITS, this is indeed far from obvious. Hi Filipus. I've been off the board for some time but SPI certainly *had* a general purpose issue tracker and AFAIK still has. This was implemented as part of the same "request tracker" instance that tracks reimbursements. Ask the sysadmins. Thanks for this. I would be delighted to discover an existing general-purpose ITS, but that does not look easy. I requested one on spi-general on 2016-07-30 via the quoted email and nobody replied anything suggesting one existed. I re-scanned SPI's website and could not find a link to that. I even searched using terms "issue tracker" and "issue tracking system" using Google Web Search and that did not help. However, I also couldn't find the tracking system for reimbursements, which apparently does exist, so perhaps others can help? Joshua, could you point to the tracker you referred to? Is it possible that it can be used as a general-purpose ITS, and if not, could it be that this used to be the case? If a general-purpose ITS does exist, please consider Issue #0 as a request to document that on SPI's website. Cheers, Rob -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue tracking system
On 2018-01-02 03:43, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Filipus Klutiero [2018-01-01 21:32]: Thanks for this. I would be delighted to discover an existing general-purpose ITS, but that does not look easy. I requested one on spi-general on 2016-07-30 via the quoted email and nobody replied anything suggesting one existed. I re-scanned SPI's website and could not find a link to that. I even searched using terms "issue tracker" and "issue tracking system" using Google Web Search and that did not help. However, I also couldn't find the tracking system for reimbursements, which apparently does exist, so perhaps others can help? SPI uses RT at rt.spi-inc.org. It's mentioned e.g. here https://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/onboarding/directors/ and https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/newprojects/ It could probably be documented better. I would state this more affirmatively. While https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/newprojects/ could be considered as a mention, it never indicates, either explicitly or implicitly, that it refers to an issue tracking system. As for the former, my first scan of the page did not see a mention since there is no link. After reading, I now see the mention you refer to in the Access to services section. I thank you. This leaves a huge question: who can consult the tracker? Can anyone who is not a director consult any ticket? And is the answer to that available publically? -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue tracking system
On 2018-02-16 11:42, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Filipus Klutiero [2018-02-13 07:09]: This leaves a huge question: who can consult the tracker? Can anyone who is not a director consult any ticket? And is the answer to that available publically? The board and certain volunteers and contractors (e.g. those dealing with reimbursement requests) have access. It's not open because it contains a lot of sensitive information (receipts, bank information, etc). Potentially some RT queues could be opened up for public view. Thank you Anyway, since the system wasn't documented properly, I've now added a page and linked to it from various pages on the web site: http://spi-inc.org/corporate/rt/ Thank you very much. I would replace "you can open a new ticket by sending an email to the following address at the |rt.spi-inc.org| domain" with "you can open a new ticket by sending an email to *one of the following addresses* at the |rt.spi-inc.org| domain". Also, it would be important to either link to RT documentation explaining how it works, or to explain: 1. The format of mails. If Subject corresponds to ticket title and the body directly corresponds to ticket description, just stating that would clarify. 2. How to obtain a ticket identifier, or if that is not possible, a confirmation that a ticket was opened. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Issue tracking system
On 2018-02-17 13:12, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Filipus Klutiero [2018-02-17 10:10]: http://spi-inc.org/corporate/rt/ Thank you very much. I would replace "you can open a new ticket by sending an email to the following address at the |rt.spi-inc.org| domain" with "you can open a new ticket by sending an email to *one of the following addresses* at the |rt.spi-inc.org| domain". Also, it would be important to either link to RT documentation explaining how it works, or to explain: 1. The format of mails. If Subject corresponds to ticket title and the body directly corresponds to ticket description, just stating that would clarify. 2. How to obtain a ticket identifier, or if that is not possible, a confirmation that a ticket was opened. I believe these points are now addressed. I completely agree. Thanks. Thanks to you, once again -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Recap on issue tracking situation (Re: Issue #0 - No general-purpose issue tracking system)
Hi, This mail recaps what I learned and what changed regarding issue tracking since I reported this issue. Thanks to Robert Brockway and Martin Michlmayr, I confirmed that SPI does have an issue tracking system. Thanks to Dr. Michlmayr, this system is now documented on http://spi-inc.org/corporate/rt/ This system has 2 major issues: it cannot be used to report any issue, and cannot be used to report an issue publically. Pending resolution of these, I created an unofficial general-purpose tracker available at http://philippecloutier.com/Software+in+the+Public+Interest+Issue+Tracking+System+-+Unofficial Since I reported issue #0, one of my projects started using Redmine. I did not use it much and left that project several months ago, so I cannot recommend it with all my weight, but my memory indicates a good impression. Redmine is implemented in Ruby and a recent version is distributed in the stable and unstable suites of our associated project Debian (though not in testing, due to a serious bug reported 2017-11-14). I have [virtually] no experience with the Request Tracker engine currently used by SPI, so I cannot say that Redmine is superior to RT, but before deciding to use RT to power a general-purpose ITS, I suggest to make a decent comparison of both. On 2016-07-30 10:55, Filipus Klutiero wrote: According to Joshua D. Drake, SPI has an issue tracking system for reimbursements, but not for other issues (see http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2016-July/003466.html ). If there is already a genera-purpose ITS, this is indeed far from obvious. Therefore, in the absence of such a tracker, I am using this email to officially request SPI to put in place an issue tracker for all issues, or for issues which are not already covered by a dedicated tracker. Unfortunately, the one ITS engine I liked using is Atlassian JIRA, which is not free software. I have been unsatisfied with all open source engines I used. I have no strong opinion on which engine should be picked. Obviously, having a web interface would be extremely important, particularly one which is not read-only, though email notifications are very useful. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Meeting agendas and mails to spi-announce mailing list
On 2018-07-04 09:38, Martin Michlmayr wrote: * Philippe Cloutier [2018-07-02 18:01]: 1. At least avoid collapsing with the "F2F" "acronym" I removed F2F since it doesn't really matter where the action items came from. Sounds like a great solution; thanks Martin -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: [RESULT] Replace the bylaws of Software in the Public Interest
Thank you Tim, hi everyone, On 19-04-09 15 h 13, Tim Potter wrote: Hi everyone. The results fo the recent vote to replace the SPI bylaws have been calculated. Out of 216 contributing members 129 votes were cast. 125 votes to accept the new bylaws to and 4 voted to not accept the new bylaws. Article 12 of the curent bylaws[1] requires that two thirds of members, 145 in this case, vote in the affirmative for bylaws to be altered, amended, repealed or added to. As such the vote to replace the bylaws did NOT pass. Thank you to everyone who participated in the voting process. I am sorry that the replacement did not pass. And looking at how the votes come to such a result, I cannot help but feel partially guilty, as I did not vote to accept the new bylaws. But I remember very well having received the invitation to vote and decided not to vote. I had been hearing about this change for many months. As a relatively recent SPI member, I thought there were old problems with the bylaws which were identified before I joined, and I imagined the new bylaws fixed some of these problems. In my mind, there were other members who had been involved for longer than myself and who were aware of the issue which were qualified to take that decision, so I saw no interest in educating myself on the issues of the "old" bylaws as: 1. I thought they would be history soon. 2. I didn't remember any controversy about the bylaws change and assumed the vote was a formality. One may argue that members should be familiar with bylaws and that I should have known of that risk, but as a volunteer who is involved not just with SPI but with many other projects (and I think by definition all SPI voters are involved in other projects), I do not have a level of involvement in SPI sufficient to know by heart an article which matters as infrequently as the problematic one (ARTICLE TWELVE - AMENDMENTS). I wondered if I had been negligent, reading the voting communication too fast, but after looking at my mailbox (which might be missing 1 mail), I didn't find any indication that abstention effectively opposed the change. Judging from http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2019-March/003965.html alone I think many members may have failed to realized the impact of abstaining. I still haven't compared the bylaws and don't know whether the new bylaws should have passed, but: 1. I strongly suspect that a large majority of contributing members would prefer the proposed bylaws. 2. If a new vote quickly proposes the very same thing, I for one will compare the current and proposed bylaws and vote for the proposed bylaws if I find them superior. I use this opportunity to thank Dr. Michlmayr for his service on the board. And thanks to Jimmy Kaplowitz for accepting to serve as president. -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
Re: Proposed resolution - rescind position of SPI board advisors
Hi, Le 2019-12-09 à 18:19, Martin Michlmayr a écrit : * Bdale Garbee [2019-12-09 15:59]: It's not clear to me why you need to rescind the resolution instead of just continuing to not actually appoint or seek advice from existing appointees. What's the problem you're actually trying to solve? Make sure reality is reflected. The annual report lists the advisors, but they haven't been consulted in years, so imho it makes sense to reflect that. I find it quite natural in a mostly open project like this one that advisors are not explicitly consulted. I would not infer from a presence in such an SPI advisor list that a person is explicitly consulted. It also creates more balance between projects (why is the Debian project leader always an advisor?) I do not see balance between projects (whatever that means) as a goal. Nor would I consider gender imbalance as a problem per se. To discuss genders, the problem I could see is a lack of feminine presence. But I expelling productive males would be a costly solution to that, if it can be one. I never heard about advisor creating any kind of imbalance (though I must say I was also unaware of their existence). That being said, I have no strong opinion on this, though if we don't publish a list of current advisors, as seems to be the case, I would tend to support abolition. [...] -- Filipus Klutiero http://www.philippecloutier.com ___ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
