Re: Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification
Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> writes:
> 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 4.
> 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 believe that the combinatorics (putting each possible combination on the
ballot) is the correct approach given our voting system and given the
range of possible opinions.
To see why, suppose there is a voter who is happy with private votes
provided that the secretary decisions can be overridden, but if secretary
decisions cannot be overridden, they do not want private votes. If the
two votes are unbundled, that voter cannot vote their preference, and
their only option is to either add a new ballot option on one of the votes
to do both at once or vote both below NotA.
If all three options (secretary changes only, private vote only, secretary
changes plus private vote) are on the same ballot, that voter can then
accurately vote their opinion by putting the last above NotA and the
second below NotA. The point of using a clone-proof voting system is to
allow us to capture preferences like that by feeling free to add
additional options to the ballot.
I completely agree with separating *unrelated* changes, but the whole
point of this discussion is that some folks believe the changes are
closely related, to the extent that one of the changes may not be
desirable unless the other one is made at the same time.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: