Re: Making the RMS resolution a Secret Ballot

[Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>]

Hallo,
* Russ Allbery [Fri, Apr 09 2021, 10:59:16AM]:
> Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Thanks for doing this.  I'm actually very comfortable for us to make the
> > decision under 5.1(3).  We cleraly cannot hold a GR in time to change
> > the constitution prior to the election ending.  And our constitution
> > already has a provision for making decisions where a timely decision is
> > required.  I think this qualifies; it is becoming more and more clear we
> > need to protect people on both sides of the vote, and other avenues like
> > GRs will not allow us to achieve something in time.  This is not a
> > situation that has become urgent through inaction on our part: as
> > harassment has increased it has become more clear that action is needed.
> > So while we might have been willing to let this last vote slide without
> > secret ballots, it is becoming more clear through the actions of others
> > that is an increasingly bad idea.  So I absolutely support the DPL (with
> > the secratary's concurrance) making this decision under the emergency
> > powers DPL clause.
>
> I support this approach and believe the DPL should decide under 5.1(3)
> that Debian will not publish the association between identity and ballot
> for the RMS resolution.
>
> My rationale:

I fully support this.

While I am not afraid of seeing my choice exposed to the public, I
understand the worries of fellow DDs who don't want a potential employer
to see that in their HR research. That's said independent of the
particular vote but it mostly matters in the countries with epidemic
cancel culture.

Those who insist on making the personal views on this (non-technical!!!)
GR public should be ashamed of dragging their fellows into denuding
themselves for no good reason.

Best regards,
Eduard.