[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thanks and Decision making working group

On 4/20/21 12:10 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Instead, some people viewed this as an election about how neutral Debian
> should be.  Some people viewed it as a discussion of how much we should
> support rms.
> Some people focused on what we should say about rms.
> And that's okay.
> We'll never entirely be able to untangle all those answers.

Exactly. The GR was about all of the above (and more?).

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed to read some wants to change the
voting system because of what happened during this GR. Yes, the voting
system should be improved if it is possible to do so. But this GR
shouldn't be the main reason/motivation. We should do it because we
strive to have the most democratic system. Some of the properties we may
want to have (lamely copied from some research paper):

- Eligibility: only legitimate voters can vote, and only once.
- Fairness: no early results can be obtained which could influence the
remaining voters.
- Vote-privacy: the fact that a particular voter voted in a particular
way is not revealed to anyone.
- Receipt-freeness: a voter does not gain any information (a receipt)
which canbe used to prove to a coercer that she voted in a certain way.
- Coercion-resistance: a voter cannot cooperate with a coercer to prove
to him that she voted in a certain way.
- Individual verifiability: a voter can check that her own ballot is
included inthe election's bulletin board.
- Universal verifiability: anyone can check that the election outcome
corresponds to the ballots published on the bulletin.


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Reply to: