[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

Sam Hartman dijo [Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 05:20:49PM -0700]:
> >>>>> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com> writes:
> Yes, I think 3) and 4) are much more important in hidden votes.

If this is right, Sam, let me politely ask you to unbundle. Not only
due to Martin's argument (the scar of "editorial changes" we all had
to endure and understand a little too late), but also to keep each of
the choices as simple and clear as possible -- and to avoid
combinatorics. And even clarity!

Say, now that Judit added a ballot option that works targets only one
of your concerns (voter secrecy). This option does not consider 3 and

Suppose no other options are present. Judit's option wins, yours is
second, and NotA is third. A simplistic reading would mean, "merge
Judit's proposed changes in the constitution". However, more people
voted 3 and 4 above NotA -- Shouldn't they also be included? Do they
warrant a separate GR now?

Or should the GR have now four options? (Sam's original, Sam's minus 3
and 4, Judit's original, and Judit's plus 3 and 4)

> 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.

So... Yes, please -- do unbundle the changes in whichever way you see
better. I understand your rationale, but as it is, it gets harder to
parse for those of us who are not following 100% of the posts in
d-vote in real time. I would feel the current discussion is mostly
focused on the anonymous character of the votes; given there is
momentum on this, my recommendation (which you are, of course, free to
ignore as you have some real arguments behind!) is to amend your
proposal dropping the 3 and 4 changes for a later stage, and continue
the GR process as it is.

Anyway -- Thanks for the _huge_ work and thought you are putting into
making Debian's governance better and clearer!

       - Gunnar.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: