Re: Amendment: Keep e-mail while allowing other options in addition [Re: GR: Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 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
> 1) As long as it make sense, we should continue to support email voting.
> However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to change
> how we collect votes.
I don't want it to take a 3:1 majority to add additional methods (web
based, I'm presuming), but I think not allowing a signed (and/or
encrypted) emailed ballot to count should require a 3:1 majority. [The
former potentially allows more valid voters to vote, the latter
potentially reduces who can vote.]
> 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
Worst case, the secretary would just have to set up two voting systems,
and import the results from one system into the other. [Kind of a pain,
but at least until we have a few votes under our belts with a new
system, it seems warranted. If I'm wrong, and everyone prefers the new
system, and there are no (or acceptable few) e-mailed votes, a
constitutional amendment should be easy.]
> 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.
> 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.
The secretary would still have to run a vote to make a statement of the
day, so it might as well still require a supermajority. [Alternatively,
we could write in a self-deleting section which only required a majority
to remove its effect... but that seems complicated.]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer
> required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people
> like it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see
> about how we pick a different system, or not, later.
Looks interesting. I know (having hacked up devotee to make
pocket-devotee) that the plumbing around these systems is complicated;
I'd certainly love to see a solution which has a larger community
contributing to it.
Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com
Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept.
-- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_]