Re: Democracy in Debian
On 7 Feb 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane spake thusly:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 04:50:40AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
>> This _implication_ that the Secretary wouldn't properly run a vote
>> concerning his own appointment is tiresome. If that's what you
>> meant, please say it directly.
>
> It is not what I meant, but now I feel queried about my opinion on
> this issue, so I'll bite. I don't think Manoj Srivasta would do
> that. I wouldn't put it beyond another future secretary, not knowing
> who the future secretaries will be. I don't think that the DD body
> is entirely made of righteous people.
>
I think that assuming that people in debian appointed to
various positions are people of integrity and can do the job they
volunteered to do in an ethical fashion is not too much to ask for.
Anyway, I would much rather resign than merely recuse myself;
If things have come to the point that I need to let others run a vote
because I can't run an honest vote, it is time for the project to be
better served by an honest secretary.
> Should the situation arise with the current constitution, the
> secretary can use 7.1.4 to avoid impropriety or we can still
> formally have the election run by the secretary, but cross-checked
> by other people. Just have the address foo@vote.debian.org deliver
> to the secretary and these other people (which can be ensured by
> DSA). These people can run the same procedure as the secretary and
> publicly cry foul if the secretary cheated in any way (other than
> breaking the signature algorithms in OpenPGP). This _does_ require a
> not too uncooperative secretary, or DSA moving to override him, I
> suppose.
And if these people are in cahoots? I mean, accusation of the
cabal taking over are hardly new; you need to watch the watchers
(and the watcher watchers [and the ...]). You are pointing to only
one situation where the secretary may seem to be biased. Indeed, any
controversial vote can be one in which the secretary holds a strong
opinion.
Additionally, there are already means of doing an audit that
can check any results after the fact; it would be a incredbly stupid
secretary that would cheat knowing full well that an audit would turn
up discrepancies.
If we can not trust our officers to do the right thing when
they know full well that a simple audit can reveal discrepancies, we
have come to a sorry state of affairs, and all hope is lost anyway.
Having said that, I would indeed like the DSA to set up
archival of ballots (or, if that is too tie consuming, arhival of all
messages to vote.d.o).
> Does this satisfy you?
>
>> If not, what _did_ you mean?
>
> I meant that I find it amusing that Debian would run a vote of
> destitution of a person by this person herself.
I think we assume that the person wearing the secretaries hat
would have the integrity to perform their office ethically. You
amusement indicates that your experience with people who have ethics
has been limited, my commiserations go with you.
>> And who do you think ought to run that vote?
>
> I don't have a silver bullet handy to solve this suboptimality in
> the constitution. A few ideas from the top of my head include:
Actually, I think trusting people to do their jobs, even in
controversial situations, is not really a defect.
> - The previous secretary
Hmm. A non-starter here.
> - A secretary-like position it is the only role of
Seems like a waste - a postion created whose only job is to
take votes when the secretary is deemed to be too biased -- what if
both people are so biased?
> - The board of SPI (because they appoint the secretary if there is
> no agreement between the previous secretary and the DPL)
> - The Chairman of the Technical Committee (because he is the acting
> secretary if there is none)
This is feasible, of course, unless all these people belong to
the cabal.
manoj
--
Anything is possible on paper. Ron McAfee
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: