Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Social Committee proposal text (diff)
- From: Josip Rodin <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 00:43:59 +0200
- Message-id: <20070604224359.GA17116@keid.carnet.hr>
- In-reply-to: <20070213222658.GA18325@keid.carnet.hr>
- References: <20070212023252.GA2439@keid.carnet.hr> <20070212103812.GB2870@schmehl.info> <20070212111732.GC18638@keid.carnet.hr> <20070213101752.GB2876@schmehl.info> <20070213110734.GD26053@keid.carnet.hr> <20070213161743.GA22780@country.grep.be> <20070213222658.GA18325@keid.carnet.hr>
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 11:26:58PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > > Having a record of who voted for whom is a good default. Since we don't
> > > have any typical real-world election abuses in Debian (e.g. intimidation
> > > or harming of people who voted for someone you don't like), I see no
> > > serious negative consequences to publishing the votes.
> > "I don't like this person, but I have to work with him in this project,
> > so I would like to hide that fact from him/her. I don't want to rank
> > him/her above NOTA, but I also don't want to have to explain that"
> Okay, that's a good point. I'm not automatically convinced that it's a
> seriously negative thing, however. This kind of openness can obviously
> cause some friction, but do we have any real evidence that says it's
> an insurmountable obstacle?
Resurrecting this old thing for another question that came to me now -
would it make sense to postpone the publication of votes in soc-ctte
elections? Like, publish the list of voters after a year or two?
By that time, time itself should have eroded much of the problem...
2. That which causes joy or happiness.