* Harlan Lieberman-Berg [2022-03-05 16:13]:
I hereby amend this proposal, unless any of the seconding Developers
(CCed) objects. The diff follows:
commit 7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1
Author: Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Date: Sat Mar 5 16:01:26 2022 -0500
Change language as suggest
Hi Harlan,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think your reasoning is sound and
appreciate you elaborating on it.
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 07:28:57PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> I still hope that this option receives enough seconds to go on the
> ballot as an intermediary position betw
Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 04:13:48PM -0500]:
> (...)
> > If it is your intention that making the ballot secret extends the
> > discussion time (as adding a ballot option would), then also: Amend
> > A.1.4. to read, "The addition of a ballot option, the change via an
> > amend
On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Richard Laager wrote:
If that's your intended application, why not just make that the
explicit process, rather than requiring it be part of a ballot
option?
I suppose one reason might be so you don't have to duplicate a lot
of procedural elements, by piggybacking
On 3/4/22 18:28, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
In practice, the way that I would like to see this work is that a
ballot option is proposed with no content other than turning the
ballot to a secret option. Then people can, regardless of their
position on the issue, second that ballot option to avo
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:12 AM Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I think, 4K puts the bar very high (that would require 20 people).
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:39 PM Bill Blough wrote:
> However, to generate further discussion, I do agree with Judit [1] that
> 4K seems like a high bar.
Hi Judit, Bill,
I second the ballot option quoted below.
However, to generate further discussion, I do agree with Judit [1] that
4K seems like a high bar.
In a general sense, if the bar is too high then the result might be
indistinguishable from not allowing secret votes at all. Of course the
opposite could be t
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:54:40PM -0500, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:46:16PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> [...]
>
> > I have argued against this notion that private votes in some way
> > contradicts our principles of transparency¹, but that got no replies
> > + At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot
> > option
> > + which says the votes will be kept secret.
I think, 4K puts the bar very high (that would require 20 people).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:55 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> Regarding the 'public as an option' ballot: it's not hard to imagine a(nother)
> controversial GR where people voting X>Y would be more likely to make it
> public, while those voting Y>X would be strongly inclined to keep it private
> -
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:57 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
>
> votes being public brings a few extra bits of transparency
More than that, public votes are a measure of mutual trust. Fans are
right to mourn their loss. Do we not live in polarized times?
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:46:16PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]
> I have argued against this notion that private votes in some way
> contradicts our principles of transparency¹, but that got no replies
> whatsoever.
>
> ¹ https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/yg+tfywh09xmp...@debian.
On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
>
> Rationale
>
> While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
> may be so controversial that the potential for a
Philip Hands dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:34:56AM +0100]:
> Does this not force people that would like to keep their vote secret to
> publish that fact in order for it to happen (which might well hint
> strongly at how they are likely to vote)?
Might be. But people feeling any pressure due to the
I hereby second Harlan's option. Thanks a lot for taking the word for
writing it down and presenting the rationale!
Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:43:20PM -0500]:
> On 3/1/22 23:13, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I propose the following ballot option
Harlan Lieberman-Berg, 2022-03-01:
> The changes are available at:
> https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/82729d07aba7dd7ac641f7e4a87178f34b23efca
>
> A diff follows (the word diff is very confusing, so I've omitted it):
>
> diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/dev
Harlan Lieberman-Berg writes:
> On 3/1/22 23:13, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
>>
>> Rationale
>>
>> While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
>> may be so controversial that the p
On 3/1/22 23:13, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
Hello everyone,
I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
Rationale
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be
publicly revealed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello everyone,
I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
Rationale
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be
publicly revealed
19 matches
Mail list logo
