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
> following:
>
> 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
> ballots.
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_]
Reply to: