Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:14:40AM +0100, Alexander Schmehl wrote:
> > >> + <li>The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> > >> + Developers may cast their votes. Votes in social committee
> > >> elections
> > >> + are made public after the election is finished.</li>
> > > And why shall votes become public? What's voting about, if not done
> > > in secret?
> > I think we should default to open and transparent processes
> > as far as possible. And people should be willing to take public
> > stances on matters of policy, even social policy. It is not like you
> > are voting for a human who might have his feeling s hurt.
> I read the cited paragraph as exactly that: The votes of DDs in the
> election for the members of the social ctte will be made public. I
> agree that the internal soc ctte votes are a different thing; but as I
> understood it, they are not the topic of that paragraph.
> So it is exactly about "voting for a human who might have his feelings
> hurt". And it is all about possibly voting differently while the public
> is looking over your shoulder.
> I just don't see, how that will help to get a better soc ctte.
You are aware that most of our elections are done this way, we only use
hashes in the tally sheet for leader elections? I suppose we could also
obfuscate the tally sheet for soc-ctte elections, too, but I would really be
interested to see who would get offended at the votes, and particularly why
they think that they should sit on a social committee if they can't handle
I don't think I want anyone who fears the idea of public disagreement to
sit two years in a committee that arbitrates social conflicts. How can I be
sure that the same person won't act improperly when it comes to resolving
other people's issues, if they can't handle their own issues gracefully?
Maybe it's asking too much, but I really hope we that can find sixteen
level-headed people among a thousand who can handle negative votes...
2. That which causes joy or happiness.