Le dimanche 11 avril 2021 à 18:12:56+0200, Micha Lenk a écrit :
> Hi Pierre-Elliott,
>
> Am 11.04.21 um 14:27 schrieb Pierre-Elliott Bécue:
> > > 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.
> >
> > I am really worried that someone could say that holding to our values,
> > respecting our processes and avoiding to create potentially
> > indesirable precedents is "no good reason" and grounds to be ashamed.
>
> I haven't seen anybody suggesting to violate our processes or alike. What
> I've seen is a request to make use of 5.1(3) of our constitution, but I
> consider that a (granted, rarely used) part of our processes.
>
> What I see is a tension between our social contract and our code of conduct.
> The social contract paragraph three ("We will not hide problems") talks
> about doing our business in public, yet refers to our bug reports. On the
> other hand our code of conduct paragraph five ("Be open") clarifies that
> public methods of communication are preferred, "unless posting something
> sensitive." Reading the many mails on this context let me think that we have
> a rough consensus to consider the RMS GR results something sensitive. So, I
> consider the publication of the vote results for this GR a violation of our
> code of conduct...
>
> We haven't been in such a situation before (e.g. I am not aware of any
> previous GR about personal related issues), so I think we as a project need
> to find a balance for handling such situations in the future. Long term to
> me this could mean to change our constitution, e.g. allowing secret votes
> also for non leader votes in the future. Yet this doesn't help in the
> current situation.
>
> Pierre-Elliott, given the current social contract and the code of conduct,
> would you mind to elaborate a bit how you see our processes violated by
> letting the current leader make use of our constitution 5.1(3) to publish
> the RMS GR results as an anonymized tally sheet like in our yearly leader
> elections?
The CoC, although essential, doesn't supersedes the Constitution. It
actually is superseded by the Constitution.
4.2.3 reads "after the vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes
cast".
We are trying to use another part of the constitution to override this
part of the constitution.
Given how we do usually, I think this 5.1.3 usage is not consistent with
why it has been written, and therefore I think we are trying to break a
well-established process out of fear.
And I think this could give incentive to the outside to apply more
pressure the next time to see how much more we can bend.
Whether you agree or not, I honestly don't really care, because as I
already said: I won't make a fuss about it if the DPL tries to make the
vote secret and the secretary follows.
With best regards,
--
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528 F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature