On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 06:30:35PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> When considering a voting system, there are a few important things to
> consider [1]:
>
> 1- vote-privacy: the fact that a particular voter voted in a particular way
> is not revealed to anyone.
> 2- Receipt-freeness: a voter does n
* Russ Allbery [2022-03-05 12:39]:
I'm not sure that I see this for DPL elections because we publish both the
list of votes and the list of voters. If those two lists aren't the same
length, that's fairly trivially detectable.
You're right, I missed that when I looked at the election
results.
Timo Röhling writes:
> * Thomas Goirand :
>> 2- Receipt-freeness: a voter does not gain any information (a receipt)
>> which can be used to prove to a coercer that she voted in a certain way.
>> 6- Eligibility verifiability: anyone can check that each vote in the
>> election outcome was cast by
* Thomas Goirand :
1- vote-privacy: the fact that a particular voter voted in a particular
way is not revealed to anyone.
2- Receipt-freeness: a voter does not gain any information (a receipt)
which can be used to prove to a coercer that she voted in a certain way.
3- Coercion-resistance: a voter
On 3/5/22 21:07, Holger Levsen wrote:
And I'd call this 'rushed' still. If someone promises foo without explaining
how foo should be achieved and then a vote is held to mandate foo, I'd call
this 'rushed'. Even if there has been talk about foo for a year, which btw,
by Debian standards, is not a
On Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 11:42:03AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> [...] Just
> > voting on "I want my vote to be secret" without having any information
> > about the other properties is IMO completely silly and looses the point.
exactly.
> Sam's GR intentionally leaves the details open to the Proje
Thomas Goirand writes:
> When considering a voting system, there are a few important things to
> consider [1]:
> 1- vote-privacy: the fact that a particular voter voted in a particular
> way is not revealed to anyone.
> 2- Receipt-freeness: a voter does not gain any information (a receipt)
> whi
On 3/5/22 17:52, Russ Allbery wrote:
Holger Levsen writes:
And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which
is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot,
and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option.
We've been talking about secret votes fo
Holger Levsen writes:
> And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which
> is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot,
> and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option.
We've been talking about secret votes for about nine months now, so I'm
no
Stefano Rivera dijo [Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:27:45PM +]:
> Hi Holger (2022.03.04_10:42:51_+)
> > And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which
> > is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot,
> > and not only as "NOTA", but as a real o
I sponsor the option below.
Am 04.03.22 um 11:42 schrieb Holger Levsen:
Reaffirm public voting
==
Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting
system as it is.
Rationale:
The
Hi Holger (2022.03.04_10:42:51_+)
> And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which
> is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot,
> and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option.
If we were to have such an option on the ballot, my understa
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> > The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
> > probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to
> > achieve fully, [...
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and
> > will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals
> > of openness and transparency.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. From some p
Jean-Philippe MENGUAL dijo [Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:08:33PM +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> I think we can establish a limitation between "secret" and "wiser
> secret". I can understand that making vote transparent and secret is
> likely not possible. And I am not sure that it is the purpose. The
> purpose is n
I know Holger's and Bill's proposed options are prone to change and
merge, but I'll say it now and probably reaffirm it later:
I second this option.
While I prefer Harlan's, it has failed to gain sponsors, and I don't
want to risk the complete loss of public votes in Debian. I think the
statu
Hello,
Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
> probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to
> achieve fully, [...]
It is possible to achieve some reasonable level of secrecy and
transparenc
On 2022-03-04 13:15, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Is init systems GR a political GR?
>
> yet there are people maintaining systemd and sysv in public.
How is that relevant?
I'm neither a systemd nor sysv maintainer, but considerin
El 04/03/22 a las 12:03, Mattia Rizzolo escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Reaffirm public voting
> > ==
> >
> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
> > open and transparent voting, the project res
* Philip Hands: " Re: Reaffirm public voting" (Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:23:32 +0100):
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > Reaffirm public voting
>> > ==
>> >
>> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
>>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 06:41:54AM -0500, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure some gave double thoughts before voting because of the
> > shitstorm/flame that had happened before the vote.
>
> This has been argued a
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Is init systems GR a political GR?
yet there are people maintaining systemd and sysv in public.
so what's next, secret maintainers?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht
Hi,
I think we can establish a limitation between "secret" and "wiser
secret". I can understand that making vote transparent and secret is
likely not possible. And I am not sure that it is the purpose. The
purpose is not to see displayed on a public website one name related to
a GR and a vote
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>
> Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 04/03/2022 at 12:03:22+0100:
>
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 0816B9E18C762BAD Mattia
> > Rizzolo ]]
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> R
Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 04/03/2022 at 12:03:22+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 0816B9E18C762BAD Mattia
> Rizzolo ]]
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Reaffirm public voting
>> ==
>>
>> Since we can either have secr
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Reaffirm public voting
> > ==
> >
> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
> > open and transparent voting, t
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Reaffirm public voting
> ==
>
> Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
> open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting
> system as it is.
>
> Rationale:
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
