[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

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 02:28:44PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Rationale
> =========
> During the vote for GR_2021_002o, several developers said they were
> uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
> and ballot ranking would be public.
> A number of participants in the discussion believe that we would get
> election results that more accurately reflect the will of the developers
> if we do not make the name associated with a particular vote on the
> tally sheet public.
> Several people believed that the ranked votes without names attached
> would still be valuable public information.
> This proposal would treat all elections like DPL elections.
> At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
> conduct a vote via email.  There are no current plans to move away from
> email, although some members of the project want to explore
> alternatives.  If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
> would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
> another constitutional amendment.
> This proposal relies on the secretary's existing power to decide how
> votes are conducted.  During discussion we realized that there is no
> mechanism to override a specific decision of the secretary, and the
> language allowing the project to replace the secretary is ambiguous.
> Summary of Changes
> ==================
>     1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
>     public.
>     2) Do not require that votes be conducted by email.
>     3) Clarify that the developers can replace the secretary at any time.
>     4) Provide a procedure for overriding the decision of the project
>     secretary or their delegate.  Overriding the decision of what super
>     majority is required or overriding the determination of election
>     outcome requires a 3:1 majority.  The chair of the technical committee
>     decides who conducts such votes.

I think all of these are good improvements to the current state of
things and I am prepared to second the resulting GR. Thanks for working
on this.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: