Re: GR Ballot Option: Allow, but do not require, secret voting

[Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io>]

On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:41 PM Richard Laager <rlaager@wiktel.com> wrote:
> If that's your intended application, why not just make that the
> explicit process, rather than requiring it be part of a ballot
> option?
>
> I suppose one reason might be so you don't have to duplicate a lot
> of procedural elements, by piggybacking on the rules for ballot
> options.

That's the primary reason, yes.

> Also, your change duplicates the idea that leadership elections are 
> secret. That is, you add it as one of the ORed conditions, while not 
> removing it (as Sam's option does) in the later text.

I did this merely to preserve the current behavior in hopes of reducing
the controversy around the change.  5.2.5 already requires the DPL
election to be kept secret; I explicitly named it here to prevent
confusion from two parts of the constitution potentially conflicting
with each other, but I agree, that isn't necessary.

> Here is an alternative idea on how to implement this:
>
> Add as 4.2.5 and renumber the existing 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.2.7, "If, 
> during the discussion period, at least 4K Developers call for a
> secret ballot, then the votes are kept secret, even after the voting
> is finished."
>
> If it is your intention that making the ballot secret extends the 
> discussion time (as adding a ballot option would), then also: Amend
> A.1.4. to read, "The addition of a ballot option, the change via an
> amendment of a ballot option, or a successful call for a secret 
> ballot changes the end of the discussion period..."

I think that's a more elegant solution.  Adapted into 
https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1.

I hereby amend this proposal, unless any of the seconding Developers
(CCed) objects.  The diff follows:

commit 7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1
Author: Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io>
Date:   Sat Mar 5 16:01:26 2022 -0500

    Change language as suggested by rlaager

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml
index 7924992d3a7..4830c972df9 100644
--- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -225,16 +225,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>
   </li>
    <li>
-    <p>
-       Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting
period.
-       After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast,
unless
-       either one of the following is true:
-    </p>
-    <ol>
-       <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in
&sect;5.2.</p></li>
-       <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot
option
-       which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
-    </ol>
+    <p>Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting
period.
+    If, during the discussion period, at least 4K Developers call for a
secret
+    ballot, then the votes are kept secret. Otherwise, after the vote, the
+    Project Secretary lists all the votes cast.</p>
   </li>
    <li>
@@ -854,12 +848,12 @@ plebiscites, where stated above.</p>
   proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If any of them do
   disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.</li>
 -  <li>The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
-  ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one week
-  from when that action was done, unless that would make the total
-  discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period or longer
-  than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case, the length of
-  the discussion period is instead set to the maximum discussion
+  <li>The addition of a ballot option, the change via an amendment of a
ballot
+  option, or a successful call for a secret ballot changes the end of the
+  discussion period to be one week from when that action was done,
unless that
+  would make the total discussion period shorter than the minimum
discussion
+  period or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter
case, the
+  length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum discussion
   period.</li>
    <li>The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that


Sincerely,
--
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
~hlieberman

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature