[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> writes:

> Hi,
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:31 PM Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>> Trying to be generous to one another and only tackle divisions when they
>> are of central importance to the project is a good principle, but I think
>> there are some divisions of central importance to the project, not
>> everyone is going to agree on which divisions are of central importance,
>> and six DDs have a right under the constitution to bring a GR to a vote.
>> I'm also leery of getting into another situation where a vote is going to
>> be worrisome but we have no framework to mitigate the effects because
>> we've been overly hopeful that we could avoid any such vote.
> Six DDs can force a vote, but not necessarily a decision. Would a
> higher quorum help to ensure that divisive issues remain moot unless
> there is broader interest?

I was wondering if we could allow expressions of disdain
(anti-seconds?), such that a second would get cancelled out for every
two DDs (or maybe a larger multiple?) that respond to a call for seconds
with an anti-second. A proposal would then need to stay at above 6
seconds for some short period after the latest anti-second landed to be
considered to have a properly seconded proposal.

I'm not sure what one would want to do if a hundred anti-seconds landed
just too late.

That might of course be somewhat divisive too, since people may feel like
they didn't get a fair hearing, but would allow the project to express a
"Let's not go there" without having to discuss it for ages.

Also, if the declarations of disdain needed to be public, that would
disenfranchise anyone that's only going to vote in secret ballots. I
suppose one could do the anti-seconding in secret, but in that case one
would also need to allow at least some of the seconds to be secret as
well, to have an even playing field, which all seems a bit complicated.

Alternatively, we could just have this as an informal thing, where
people get to somehow declare their reaction to a GR discussion, in a
secret, rolling, self-selecting poll, with simple options like "please
make this stop" or "feel free to continue" ... and the numbers get

The proposer of something that's obviously unpopular then gets to decide
if they're willing to continue pushing their idea anyway, regardless of
the fact that it's got no chance of success, and is only going to get
them a reputation for wasting everyone's time. They would of course also
have the chance at that point of persuading a silent majority (on who's
behalf they may think they speak) to express support in the poll, which
may make the opposition realise that there is a wider spectrum of
opinion than they thought, which may lead to better debate.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: