>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr <email@example.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 up. 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 problematic. 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.
Description: PGP signature