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

Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]

>>>>> "Don" == Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:

    Don> Rationale: e-mail should continue to be an option for casting
    Don> votes even while alternative methods of casting ballots might
    Don> also be allowed.

I'm supportive of a change here, and let's see if we can work out
something that we both like.
IN particular, I agree with the following:

1) As long as it make sense, we should continue to support email voting.

2) It needs sufficient project support to drop email voting.  That
shouldn't be something the secretary does all on their own.
I'm sure Kurt wouldn't, but I also understand the desire to write these
things down.

However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to change how
we collect votes.
Whether I can vote by email just isn't as important as the DFSG, , our
commitment to our users and free software, or the
separation between DPL and DAM to me, or the idea that I can never be
forced to do Debian work.

I suspect that it would take a GR to change how we conduct votes, but I'd
prefer not even to require that.
If someone leads a discussion that reaches a rough consensus that some
other voting system is good enough, I don't see why we'd need to have a
GR at that point.

I think there are two reasons why we might want to adjust our voting.
First, there's the anonymous voting systems people have been talking
I personally don't care about that, but I also don't want to add stop
energy to the work of others.

The second is that a number of developers do have trouble voting.
In past elections where some parties wanted to strongly encourage voting
we've seenn people write software to help developers fill out ballots.
Now, I admit that in the instance I'm thinking of, a significant chunk
of the motivation appeared to be political.
But I've certainly helped other Debian developers cast their ballots.
Even for people who do regular packaging work, getting GPG working in a
mainly Windows or gmail mail flow is a pain and is not easy.
And sure, while going through NM, obviously these people did have some
solution to generate GPG signed mail regularly.
But it's not clear that participating in one election is enough of a
motivation to get  that all working again.

And yes, I agree with you that  a lot of the ways I personally would
work on fixing that problem would still make it easy to accept email
In Debian we've generally embodied the principle that those doing the
work get significant latitude in how the work gets done.
To me, mandating email voting in the constitution is us telling the
secretary how to do their job, potentially  ruling out options that make
their work harder and are demotivating.
It also means that we need more bureaucracy for change.

So, I'm wondering whether it would be enough to make it clear that
changing the voting system beyond doing what we do for DPL discussions
requires adequate project consensus.

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

1) Update the rationale

2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional
amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to obtain
sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works.

I'd be happy to draft text for those two items if that would address
your concern without creating a 3:1 super majority to change how we
conduct voting.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: