Philip Hands dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:34:56AM +0100]: > Does this not force people that would like to keep their vote secret to > publish that fact in order for it to happen (which might well hint > strongly at how they are likely to vote)? Might be. But people feeling any pressure due to the public nature of the votes unless they raise a hand can also approach other DDs privately / discretely asking for a private-vote-by-proxy request. > In reaction to that flaw I suspect you'd then end up with a bunch of > public-spirited folk suggesting that option for every vote, in order to > cater to a presumed need for privacy by others. It might be the case. But I prefer the option for public voting to be there, and I would ask people not to boycott this transparency _feature_ of Debian if they don't have a real reason to. > How about people being able to request a secret ballot in private, by > asking the secretary, who would keep a tally of requests and announce > whether the vote was to be secret before voting started? I would not oppose this, given we trust the Secretary; I guess we would trust him saying "I've been contacted in private, and will thus conduct this vote as secret". But, again, asking for public requesters brings forward transparency. > BTW I had been persuaded that the published-only-internally option was > not really good enough by subsequent discussion, which is why I've not > proposed such an amendment, but perhaps the combination of > published-only-internally with option-to-go-secret would actually be > worth having as a ballot option. If we had AS=always-secret, ANRS=allow-but-not-require-secret-voting, and POIWSO=published-only-internally-with-secret-option, I would vote ANRS > POIWSO > AS, and would have to debate with myself the relative ordering of AS and NotA.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature