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

Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification

>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> writes:

Yes, I think 3) and 4) are much more important in hidden votes.

Even without 2, the constitution gives the secretary significant
flexibility in how the voting system is set up.
With hidden votes, several of us believe it is more likely that people
could end up disagreeing with how the secretary decided to set things

That's especially true if people in the project are considering pushing
for some sort of anonymous voting scheme.
It seems very likely we would want to debate those details,
and leaving that to one person without recourse if we disagree is

I think change 2 (not requiring email) makes the anonymous voting
efforts easier but is not a strict requirement.

So, if I were going to unbundle this, I'd first want to see changes 3)
and 4) approved before I'd be comfortable voting for 1, 2 and 6.

I'd definitely be interested in improvements to the rationale of my
ballot option to better explain why changes 3-4 are something you
probably want to approve before 1, 2 and 6.

I absolutely agree that these changes would be split into multiple
commits in a software project
I think they would be one merge request though, and if I were the one
approving the merging, I'd want 3-4 in the first merge request if it
were split into two merge requests.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: