Re: General Resolution: Voting secrecy: First call for votes
Hi,
I'm sorry for not noticing this yesterday, but ...
On 13/03/22 at 00:43 +0100, Debian Project Secretary - Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Choice 1: Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote
> =================================================================
>
> Rationale
> =========
>
> During the vote for GR_2021_002, several developers said they were
> uncomfortable voting because under the process at that time, their name
> and ballot ranking would be public.
> A number of participants in the discussion believe that we would get
> election results that more accurately reflect the will of the developers
> if we do not make the name associated with a particular vote on the
> tally sheet public.
> Several people believed that the ranked votes without names attached
> would still be valuable public information.
>
> This proposal would treat all elections like DPL elections.
> At the same time it relaxes the requirement that the secretary must
> conduct a vote via email. If the requirement for email voting is
> removed, then an experiment is planned at least with the belenios voting
> system [1]. belenios may provide better voter secrecy and an easier
> web-based voting system than our current email approach.
> If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
> would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
> another constitutional amendment.
>
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/YhoTRIxtz3AIpO+g@roeckx.be
>
> This proposal increases our reliance on the secretary's existing power
> to decide how votes are conducted. The lack of an override mechanism
> for secretary decisions about how we conduct votes has not been a
> problem so far. However, if we are going to rely on this power to
> consider questions like whether the project has sufficient consensus to
> adopt an alternate voting mechanism, we need an override mechanism.
> So, this proposal introduces such a mechanism.
>
> Summary of Changes
> ==================
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
> public.
>
> 2) Do not require that votes be conducted by email.
>
> 3) Clarify that the developers can replace the secretary at any time.
>
> 4) Provide a procedure for overriding the decision of the project
> secretary or their delegate. Overriding the decision of what super
> majority is required or overriding the determination of election
> outcome requires a 3:1 majority. The chair of the technical committee
>
> <h3>4.2. Procedure</h3>
> @@ -228,9 +246,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>
> <p>
> Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
> results are not revealed during the voting period; after the
> vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes {+cast in sufficient
> detail that anyone may verify the outcome of the election from the votes cast.
> The+}
> {+ identity of a developer casting a particular vote is not made+}
> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm their vote
> is included in the votes+} cast. The voting period is 2 weeks, but may be
> varied by up
> to 1 week by the Project Leader.
> </p>
> </li>
>
> @@ -247,7 +266,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>
> </li>
>
> <li>
> <p>Votes are cast[-by email-] in a manner suitable to the Secretary.
> The Secretary determines for each poll whether voters can change
> their votes.</p>
> </li>
> @@ -371,8 +390,7 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>
> necessary.</li>
>
> <li>The next two weeks are the polling period during which
> Developers may cast their votes. [-Votes in leadership elections are-]
> [- kept secret, even after the election is finished.</li>-]{+</li>+}
>
> <li>The options on the ballot will be those candidates who have
> nominated themselves and have not yet withdrawn, plus None Of The
The diff for this option does not match the one on
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001.en.html (and is the same as
for Choice 2)
> Choice 2: Amend resolution process, allow extension of discussion period
> ========================================================================
The title for this option is wrong.
Lucas
Reply to: