Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.vote > #3063 > unrolled thread

Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.vote

Contents

  Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-13 22:30 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-13 23:10 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 04:00 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2022-02-13 23:40 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 00:20 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 00:50 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-14 01:40 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 04:10 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 17:00 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Karsten Merker <merker@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 21:30 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Richard Laager <rlaager@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 00:50 +0100
          Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 01:30 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 01:40 +0100
              Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-02-15 09:50 +0100
                Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 18:00 +0100
                  Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-16 00:00 +0100
                    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-02-16 09:20 +0100
                      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Marc Haber <mh+debian-vote@zugschlus.de> - 2022-02-16 09:20 +0100
                      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-16 18:00 +0100
                        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> - 2022-02-16 18:10 +0100
                        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-16 20:30 +0100
                        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-02-16 20:30 +0100
                      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-16 18:20 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 02:50 +0100
              Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2022-02-15 10:30 +0100
                Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-15 17:40 +0100
                Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2022-02-16 13:30 +0100
                  Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2022-02-16 18:30 +0100
                    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2022-02-16 19:40 +0100
                    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2022-02-16 19:50 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Bill Blough <bblough@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 07:10 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Bill Blough <bblough@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 07:10 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> - 2022-02-17 16:10 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-02-14 10:40 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 12:10 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Jean-Philippe MENGUAL <jpmengual@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 12:30 +0100
          Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 17:40 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 14:10 +0100
          Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-02-14 15:00 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 15:40 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Jean-Philippe MENGUAL <jpmengual@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 16:20 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 16:20 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 16:30 +0100
              Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2022-02-14 16:50 +0100
                Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 18:10 +0100
            Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-14 19:50 +0100
              Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> - 2022-02-14 22:40 +0100
              Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2022-02-15 00:30 +0100
              Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2022-02-16 10:00 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 17:30 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2022-02-14 19:50 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 00:10 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 08:00 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Filippo Rusconi <lopippo@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 10:20 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2022-02-17 10:20 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2022-02-17 11:50 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2022-02-17 21:10 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2022-02-17 12:40 +0100
    Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2022-02-18 13:20 +0100
      Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> - 2022-02-18 15:40 +0100
        Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular Ballot are No Longer Public Judit Foglszinger <urbec@riseup.net> - 2022-02-18 16:40 +0100
          Re: Informal Discussion: Identities of Voters Casting a Particular  Ballot are No Longer Public Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-02-18 18:50 +0100

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#3077

Le 14/02/2022 à 14:55, Philip Hands a écrit :
> Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:01:43PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>> On 2/14/22 10:36, Philip Hands wrote:
>>>> I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
>>>> so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
>>>> to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?
>>>
>>> I very much agree with the above.
>>> I don't see why I would want to hide my opinion from the other DDs.
>>
>> Making the ballot secret makes it possible for one to not do so if they
>> feel that is against their best interests, but does not stop you from
>> stating your opiniion publicly.
> 
> Under what circumstances are we expecting people to think that letting
> other DDs know how they voted is going to be against their interests?

Well, again, see the thread about RMS GR. I remember there wer some 
really strong attacks between DDs or outside. Debian is a mulcicultural 
aned international project, with different cultures of democracy. It is 
a strength, but also really hard when addressing political topics.

> 
> If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on
> the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject
> such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their
> toxicity using measures that have negative side-effects.

This point is right. But I am not sure Debian is robust enough, today, 
to expell easily, quickly and without the victims to be disappointed to 
make part of the project, someone. recent examples show how such 
decisions are difficult, controversial, and while CT + DAM + DPL work on 
this, I think it is a long-term thought, given the original culture of 
Debian and the current society state of mind.

regards

> 
> Cheers, Phil.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3078

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> >> > I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> >> > so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
> >> > to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?
> >> 
> >> I very much agree with the above.
> >> I don't see why I would want to hide my opinion from the other DDs.
> >
> > Making the ballot secret makes it possible for one to not do so if they
> > feel that is against their best interests, but does not stop you from
> > stating your opiniion publicly.
> 
> Under what circumstances are we expecting people to think that letting
> other DDs know how they voted is going to be against their interests?
"Call for experiences of <>"

> If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on
> the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject
> such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their
> toxicity using measures that have negative side-effects.
That would indeed be good, ideally.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3079

Hi Philip (2022.02.14_13:55:45_+0000)
> Under what circumstances are we expecting people to think that letting
> other DDs know how they voted is going to be against their interests?

From the discussions around recent GRs, I saw that there were community
members who were uncomfortable making their views on an particular
decisions public. Not because of fear of attack from a single toxic
person, but rather that there'd be many people who disagreed with their
vote.

I can imagine this if you are voting for the unpopular option, or an
option perceived as not being politically correct.

SR

-- 
Stefano Rivera
  http://tumbleweed.org.za/
  +1 415 683 3272

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3081

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Philip (2022.02.14_13:55:45_+0000)
>> Under what circumstances are we expecting people to think that letting
>> other DDs know how they voted is going to be against their interests?
>
> From the discussions around recent GRs, I saw that there were community
> members who were uncomfortable making their views on an particular
> decisions public. Not because of fear of attack from a single toxic
> person, but rather that there'd be many people who disagreed with their
> vote.
>
> I can imagine this if you are voting for the unpopular option, or an
> option perceived as not being politically correct.

I can imagine being fearful of that too, but what I'm interested in is
whether we have any evidence of that fear being justified.

If it is actually the case that any of our votes have been followed by
people giving one-another grief over their vote, that is one thing, and
I think we need to ensure that we have mechanisms for dealing with such
an eventuality.

On the other hand, if that does not actually happen, then I'd suggest
that it's better to establish that as a well known fact than to allow
people to continue being fearful that it might be something they should
expect.

I think going to a lot of effort to decide that ballots should be secret
strongly implies that we currently have such a problem, whether we do or
not, which seems only likely to amplify those fears regardless of
whether they are well founded.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3083

Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:

> I can imagine being fearful of that too, but what I'm interested in is
> whether we have any evidence of that fear being justified.

> If it is actually the case that any of our votes have been followed by
> people giving one-another grief over their vote, that is one thing, and
> I think we need to ensure that we have mechanisms for dealing with such
> an eventuality.

> On the other hand, if that does not actually happen, then I'd suggest
> that it's better to establish that as a well known fact than to allow
> people to continue being fearful that it might be something they should
> expect.

I think it's very difficult to fight the chilling effect of worrying that
you will suffer consequences for your vote by gathering evidence that
there is no documented case of this happening.  For one thing, such
consequences can be subtle and difficult to trace (this happens all the
time in workplaces, for example, where someone with power decides they
don't like you and then your job assignments and the like get subtlely
worse).  And for another, we're all part of a larger world and safety in
expressing controversial opinions is very much not the trend of things in
the larger world of which we're a part, particularly on the Internet.

People daily are seeing rather memorable examples of social media
pile-ons, people being doxxed, people having the police sent to their
house with lies about emergencies, loud protestors outside people's
houses, people being confronted and harassed in public spaces, people
subjected to long-term concerted harassment and libel campaigns, and so
forth.  It's quite reasonable to believe that Debian activities do not
have any magical shield against this, and it's very hard to tell what
activity might set off this sort of political reaction.  Sometimes it's
apparently quite innocuous and just happens to slot into a conspiracy
theory.

And we also know for certain that Debian is not immune to this.  I don't
know of a case where it's happened specifically with votes, but it has
certainly happened to our members over other parts of Debian work, and
with a level of maliciousness and persistence that's quite staggering.

I do think it's reasonable for people to be worried about this.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3085

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:56 AM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on
> the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject
> such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their
> toxicity using measures that have negative side-effects.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:12 AM Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
<jpmengual@debian.org> wrote:
>
> This point is right. But I am not sure Debian is robust enough, today,
> to expell easily, quickly and without the victims to be disappointed to
> make part of the project, someone. recent examples show how such
> decisions are difficult, controversial, and while CT + DAM + DPL work on
> this, I think it is a long-term thought, given the original culture of
> Debian and the current society state of mind.

Based on the way people with minority opinions are treated, you would
have to expel a lot of people.

Moreover, the community cleansing effort being proposed here—which was
also proffered in private channels—is a sure way to destroy Debian as
we know it. It would not be the first time that a society attempts to
exorcise a perceived evil from their midst. There are many precedents
in history.

All of them were condemned by later generations: the Salem witch hunt;
McCartyism; the cultural revolution in China; collectivisation under
Pol Pot in Cambodia; and perhaps most infamously the many attempts
over time to expel or eradicate the Jews from various territories.

The collective condition that leads to such madness is now well
understood. It is a group form of splitting and projection [1] that
affects entire societies. The phenomenon is easily recognized once you
understand it. Because of the extreme danger, Orthodox Jews teach it.
[2]

One of Germany's great insights after World War II was that all calls
for social upheaval are in themselves barbaric. The country now has
special local and federal police agencies to monitor such corrosive
speech (Verfassungsschutz).

In 1949, Arthur Miller wrote the play "The Crucible" about it. He won
a Pulitzer and many other accolades. In 1954, William Golding dealt
with similar group dynamics in the novel "The Lord of the Flies." He
received the Nobel Prize for Literature.

I am embarrassed to read the statements above on a Debian mailing
list. It is hate speech, pure and simple—and should be grounds for
expulsion from the project.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)
[2] Sixth paragraph,
https://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/korach/how-not-to-argue/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3087

Hi,

Please allow me to clarify three things for casual readers of my earlier post.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 5:56 AM Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> wrote:
>
> If we are assuming that some DDs might start attacking people based on
> the way they voted, then I'd suggest that it's more important to eject
> such toxic people from Debian than it is to try to mitigate their
> toxicity using measures that have negative side-effects.

I see no way to expel people reliably based on what they might do. It
violates basic tenets of justice to punish people for something they
have not done yet—and may never do.

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:12 AM Jean-Philippe MENGUAL
> <jpmengual@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > This point is right. But I am not sure Debian is robust enough, today,
> > to expell easily, quickly and without the victims to be disappointed to
> > make part of the project, someone. recent examples show how such
> > decisions are difficult, controversial, and while CT + DAM + DPL work on
> > this, I think it is a long-term thought, given the original culture of
> > Debian and the current society state of mind.

Equipped with special investigative authority, members of the
community team should be careful to recognize the due process concerns
above. It also does not reflect well on their office to arouse public
opinion in favor of even easier or quicker prosecutions.

> It is hate speech, pure and simple—and should be grounds for
> expulsion from the project.

That was meant in the context of the debate and not a call for
expulsion at this time.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3088

Felix...

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:42:43AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
>
>All of them were condemned by later generations: the Salem witch hunt;
>McCartyism; the cultural revolution in China; collectivisation under
>Pol Pot in Cambodia; and perhaps most infamously the many attempts
>over time to expel or eradicate the Jews from various territories.
>
>The collective condition that leads to such madness is now well
>understood. It is a group form of splitting and projection [1] that
>affects entire societies. The phenomenon is easily recognized once you
>understand it. Because of the extreme danger, Orthodox Jews teach it.
>[2]
>
>One of Germany's great insights after World War II was that all calls
>for social upheaval are in themselves barbaric. The country now has
>special local and federal police agencies to monitor such corrosive
>speech (Verfassungsschutz).
>
>In 1949, Arthur Miller wrote the play "The Crucible" about it. He won
>a Pulitzer and many other accolades. In 1954, William Golding dealt
>with similar group dynamics in the novel "The Lord of the Flies." He
>received the Nobel Prize for Literature.
>
>I am embarrassed to read the statements above on a Debian mailing
>list. It is hate speech, pure and simple—and should be grounds for
>expulsion from the project.

Please, for everybody's sake, calm the fuck down. This kind of
inflammatory rhetoric isn't helping anything. It does not belong here.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Dance like no one's watching. Encrypt like everyone is.
 - @torproject

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3101

On 2022/02/14 20:42, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Based on the way people with minority opinions are treated, you would
> have to expel a lot of people.

Which people with minority opinions were mistreated? We're a group with 
a very, very large spectrum of opinions and so far it's only been in the 
extreme cases that there's been taken any action on them.

-Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3123

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Philip Hands dijo [Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:36:29AM +0100]:
> 
> Do we have any evidence that either thing happened?
> 
> Also, it seems to me that the problem we're considering is that toxic
> people who are not really interested in Debian at all, might stumble
> across Debian voting results, and then use what they find as a reason to
> persecute some of us on-line.  Is that about right?
> 
> I have used the results of votes in the past to start conversations with
> people that I disagree with in some issue in order to better understand
> how they came to the other view. One can generally find someone on the
> other side of the argument who you already know and respect, which makes
> it much harder to dismiss them as an idiot. I'd miss that in a properly
> secret ballot.
> 
> I don't actually care if our votes are readable by the general public,
> so would one way of addressing the concerns of attracting abuse would be
> to make the tally sheet only available to DDs behind authentication?

I completely agree with Phil here. sometimes I do spend some time
looking at different votes' tally sheets, not only to get the result,
but to understand who votes how. Of course, I might pay attention to a
dozen or so people -- but this project still has a size that allows
for that to be significative!

Possibly we could discuss on a way how to make specific votes private,
if a politically challenging topic is touched. Maybe if we were able
to have a mechanism similar to that of introducing amendments
(er... "ballot options"), where one developer proposes the vote to be
secret, and requires 5 DDs to second the request..?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3084

On 2022-02-13 16 h 28, Sam Hartman wrote:
>     2) Do not require that votes be conducted by email.

I see the general value in such a GR and wouldn't be against secret
votes if people can iron-out the feasibility problems.

I'm not sure removing the line about voting by email is relevant to this
GR though. DDs already have to interact with a lot of different systems
via email and although it's not always the most user-friendly UX, it
mostly works.

If there is indeed people working on this issue, let it be changed in a
separate GR. This way, we'll have a proper debate on the options proposed.

Cheers,

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3111

Hi Sam (2022.02.13_21:28:44_+0000)
> Comments including support or alternatives are welcome.

As you asked for a bit of a straw poll, I would support a move toward
secret ballots in all votes.

I've always felt slightly awkward about having my ballots be public. Not
enough to effect or suppress my vote. But I can imagine that it is
enough to stop other people from voting their mind. I would expect that
a secret ballot would encourage a few more project members to vote and
that's a good thing.

If we trust our secret ballot mechanism enough for the DPL elections, I
trust it for other GRs.

SR

-- 
Stefano Rivera
  http://tumbleweed.org.za/
  +1 415 683 3272

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3116

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:07:12PM +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> As you asked for a bit of a straw poll, I would support a move toward
> secret ballots in all votes.

Same here. Ideally with a wording that allows having ballots secret by
default, with a mechanism for making them not secret---but that's just
an implementation detail. (I haven't yet read the details of what has
been proposed though, I'm just commenting on my stance on the general
idea, as requested.)

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack          _. ^ ._
Full professor of Computer Science              o     o   o     \/|V|\/   
Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris     o     o o    </>   <\>
Co-founder & CTO Software Heritage            o o o     o       /\|^|/\
Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director               '" V "'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3118

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 11:07:12PM +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:
>Hi Sam (2022.02.13_21:28:44_+0000)
>> Comments including support or alternatives are welcome.
>
>As you asked for a bit of a straw poll, I would support a move toward
>secret ballots in all votes.
>
>I've always felt slightly awkward about having my ballots be public. Not
>enough to effect or suppress my vote. But I can imagine that it is
>enough to stop other people from voting their mind. I would expect that
>a secret ballot would encourage a few more project members to vote and
>that's a good thing.
>
>If we trust our secret ballot mechanism enough for the DPL elections, I
>trust it for other GRs.

+1

Sincerely,
Filippo

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀  Filippo Rusconi, PhD
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁   Research scientist at CNRS
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀   Debian Developer
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀  http://msxpertsuite.org
           http://www.debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3117

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 02:28:44PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:

> This starts informal discussion of a proposed general resolution to
> amend the constitution.  I am not seeking sponsors at this time.
> Comments including support or alternatives are welcome.  I think this is
> mature enough to seek review from the secretary.

I support this effort, especially after the heat I've seen in the
systemd and RMS GRs, were social dynamics went far beyond the democratic
curiosity of polling where people stand, and strong peer pressure was
considered a valid mean to an end.

I am aware of instances where the vote being public was the major factor
that influenced the decision to vote, and the order of options in the
ballot, and I find it scary.

I am aware of people who for various reasons (that might not be the
usual reasons one thinks of) don't enjoy my level of privilege on their
online activities and reputation, and I do want their voice to be heard
in Debian votes, unfiltered from peer pressure.

I like that a number of options have been brainstormed in the
discussion: secret ballots, ballots secret on request, ballots public on
request, ballots disclosed only to Debian Members, public ballots. I
like a GR with a range of options.

Thank you for driving this!


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3120

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
>
>I like that a number of options have been brainstormed in the
>discussion: secret ballots, ballots secret on request, ballots public on
>request, ballots disclosed only to Debian Members, public ballots. I
>like a GR with a range of options.

Absolutely - there are a lot of reasonable options here, and let's
hear them all.

>Thank you for driving this!

+1

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Is there anybody out there?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3125

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:

> I support this effort, especially after the heat I've seen in the
> systemd and RMS GRs, were social dynamics went far beyond the democratic
> curiosity of polling where people stand, and strong peer pressure was
> considered a valid mean to an end.

Given a possible upcoming GR about firmware, I'm wondering if someone
working for a large hardware manufacturer might not have more chances to
feel free to vote according to their own personal opinions, if the votes
weren't publicly disclosed.

I'm thinking that Debian as a project might have has scaled up to a
level where the outcomes of votes have higher impact than when our
process was initially designed.


Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3121

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 02:28:44PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Rationale
> =========
> 
> During the vote for GR_2021_002o, 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.  There are no current plans to move away from
> email, although some members of the project want to explore
> alternatives.  If this proposal passes, adopting such an alternative
> would require sufficient support in the project but would not require
> another constitutional amendment.
> 
> This proposal relies on the secretary's existing power to decide how
> votes are conducted.  During discussion we realized that there is no
> mechanism to override a specific decision of the secretary, and the
> language allowing the project to replace the secretary is ambiguous.
> 
> 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
>     decides who conducts such votes.

I think all of these are good improvements to the current state of
things and I am prepared to second the resulting GR. Thanks for working
on this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3132

On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 14:28:44 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> This starts informal discussion of a proposed general resolution to
> amend the constitution.  I am not seeking sponsors at this time.
> Comments including support or alternatives are welcome.  I think this is
> mature enough to seek review from the secretary.

Since the idea of general secret votes has started floating around
I've felt a sense of uneasiness, but I've not been able to clearly
put my finger on why. After some of the replies here, I think it's
starting to become clear.


I think the current secrecy for the DPL votes makes absolute sense,
and I think there's no contention about that one, because these are
about voting "for/against" people, which have clear and understood
social dynamics when it applies to colleagues/friends or people we do
work with etc. I think, thus, extending secrecy to any vote related
to "people" would also be equally uncontroversial.

Then, there's the secrecy for technical votes, which I think is where
the push back might be coming from. There's been mentions of mailing
lists being way more revealing than a vote in GR, and counters to that
mentioning that you do not need to participate in mailing lists. Both
true. The problem I think, is that to participate in Debian in any
technical role, you most definitely need to eventually make your
opinion on technical matters public, because we operate on the open.
Be that on bug reports, on changelogs, on VCS commits, or even on
mailing lists. It also feels like closing up technical votes would go
counter to the general tenets of the project and how we operate.

And then, there's the secrecy for "political" votes. I think this
might also be problematic, depending on the subject at hand. Because
as mentioned in the thread, it might make public positions that people
otherwise would not need to make so on their daily routines in Debian.


I think the RMS vote, was a mix of personal + political, which is what
made people uncomfortable with. The problem I see is that this is now
being lumped into a general direction to close everything up, which
seems excessive, TBH.


I also think the DPL votes are different to any other votes, because
the DPL has limited power, and even though a DPL can certainly disrupt
or damage the project, in the end it's bound by a time limit. Compared
to a GR where the consequences might live long, and where once settled
people do not tend to try to overturn these every subsequent year.


I've also got concerns about batching up unrelated changes, with
potentially controversial ones. And even if minor I'd prefer to see
those debundled, even at the cost of additional GRs.


Thanks,
Guillem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3134

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 01:13:50PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 14:28:44 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > This starts informal discussion of a proposed general resolution to
> > amend the constitution.  I am not seeking sponsors at this time.
> > Comments including support or alternatives are welcome.  I think this is
> > mature enough to seek review from the secretary.
>
> Since the idea of general secret votes has started floating around
> I've felt a sense of uneasiness, but I've not been able to clearly
> put my finger on why. After some of the replies here, I think it's
> starting to become clear.

Thanks for this, you raise interesting points.

> I think the current secrecy for the DPL votes makes absolute sense,
> and I think there's no contention about that one, because these are
> about voting "for/against" people, which have clear and understood
> social dynamics when it applies to colleagues/friends or people we do
> work with etc. I think, thus, extending secrecy to any vote related
> to "people" would also be equally uncontroversial.
>
> Then, there's the secrecy for technical votes, which I think is where
> the push back might be coming from. There's been mentions of mailing
> lists being way more revealing than a vote in GR, and counters to that
> mentioning that you do not need to participate in mailing lists. Both
> true. The problem I think, is that to participate in Debian in any
> technical role, you most definitely need to eventually make your
> opinion on technical matters public, because we operate on the open.
> Be that on bug reports, on changelogs, on VCS commits, or even on
> mailing lists. It also feels like closing up technical votes would go
> counter to the general tenets of the project and how we operate.
>
> And then, there's the secrecy for "political" votes. I think this
> might also be problematic, depending on the subject at hand. Because
> as mentioned in the thread, it might make public positions that people
> otherwise would not need to make so on their daily routines in Debian.
>
> I think the RMS vote, was a mix of personal + political, which is what
> made people uncomfortable with. The problem I see is that this is now
> being lumped into a general direction to close everything up, which
> seems excessive, TBH.
>
> I also think the DPL votes are different to any other votes, because
> the DPL has limited power, and even though a DPL can certainly disrupt
> or damage the project, in the end it's bound by a time limit. Compared
> to a GR where the consequences might live long, and where once settled
> people do not tend to try to overturn these every subsequent year.

By the time something comes to a vote, be it about a technical issue or
anything else, all the relevant arguments were already made in public,
and sometimes to exhaustion. The voting itself at the end of the process
is "just" a poll to decide which side (if any) of the argument convinced
the most people. It doesn't seem to me that having the votes be secret
means we are hiding anything, or compromising on our principles of
transparency in any way.

> I've also got concerns about batching up unrelated changes, with
> potentially controversial ones. And even if minor I'd prefer to see
> those debundled, even at the cost of additional GRs.

If the only contentious point is the secrecy of votes, we could have an
amendment that includes all the other proposed changes, minus that one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.vote

csiph-web