Jean-Philippe MENGUAL dijo [Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:08:33PM +0100]: > Hi, > > I think we can establish a limitation between "secret" and "wiser > secret". I can understand that making vote transparent and secret is > likely not possible. And I am not sure that it is the purpose. The > purpose is not to see displayed on a public website one name related > to a GR and a vote. An idea just floated to me :-) The reason our GRs are called General Resolutions and not, ahem, "votes" (except when we talk about them informally or want to write in fewer characters) is IMO because Debian works as a collective, where we held assemblies, and collectively discuss, propose and choose among options. Assemblies are often open (in real-world gatherings). People argue. When it comes to voting, you know what to expect about most of the people (those you know best, and those that did the arguing). Votes come from electoral systems, from larger constituencies. The stakes are different, yes, but the _participation style_ is also different. And I think we should remain closer to an assembly than to an electoral system. Yes, Debian has grown a lot since our Constitution was drafted. However, I joined in 2003, approximately where the amount of DDs stabilized; we have been ~800-1100 people since then. The model has worked decently for the past twenty years; we had two cases where private voting could have allowed people to express their opinions without fear of hate-mail, retaliation or somesuch (the FSF and the systemd votes, both with a strong political rather than technical component, even though systemd _is_ technical). > In other words, while I dont think someone will do a detailed > investigation to know who voted what (most people just will not want > to spend energy for this), anyone, including with malicious purpose, > can visit a web page to see what I voted and do harasment > then. > > While I accept not to be in a full secret, as I am not afraid with > persons who can do harasment to spend so energy to find this info in > a deep server or via a hash or whatever, I am worry bif any mad guy > can see what I voted about a GR as I know the person will not > hesitate to attack me. Again, we have an example of this, of high > flame, during RMS GR, and while the most radical persons probably > did not want to do deep investigations about voters, I think they > were ready to visit a page and go after voters. I dont know if it > happent effectively, but given how the vote happent with trials to > disturb after the campaign time, it is possible. Voting is a single-time action. If somebody is willing to harass people with strong viewpoints... It's much easier IMO to go through the mailing list archives and find who is more active, and not only find their vote, but their full argumentation. Votes for the most part _cannot_ really be private for the people most involved in a decision if we are consistent with our argumentation. Of course, you argue just the other way, that people will attack us based on the vote tally. But we are talking -and you expressly recognize it- about what _could_ happen, not about what _has_ happened. > The last thing which may justify a such ballot is the idea that "if you dont > want to see your name related to a vote, just dont vote, you dont have to do > it, you are free". this may be acceptable for political GRs, but more a > problem for ambiguous situations. > > Hence the importance to make secret possible at least, if not general and > mandatory. I agree votes should be "secretizable". But I really hope they don't become mandatorily secret.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature