On Fri, 25 Feb 2022, Sam Hartman wrote: > I'm supportive of a change here, and let's see if we can work out > something that we both like. IN particular, I agree with the > following: > > 1) As long as it make sense, we should continue to support email voting.
[...] > However, I don't think it should take a 3:1 super majority to change > how we collect votes. I don't want it to take a 3:1 majority to add additional methods (web based, I'm presuming), but I think not allowing a signed (and/or encrypted) emailed ballot to count should require a 3:1 majority. [The former potentially allows more valid voters to vote, the latter potentially reduces who can vote.] [...] > And yes, I agree with you that a lot of the ways I personally would > work on fixing that problem would still make it easy to accept email > ballots. Worst case, the secretary would just have to set up two voting systems, and import the results from one system into the other. [Kind of a pain, but at least until we have a few votes under our belts with a new system, it seems warranted. If I'm wrong, and everyone prefers the new system, and there are no (or acceptable few) e-mailed votes, a constitutional amendment should be easy.] [...] > So, I'm wondering whether it would be enough to make it clear that > changing the voting system beyond doing what we do for DPL discussions > requires adequate project consensus. [...] > 2) In the General resolution system, in addition to the constitutional > amendment, include a statement of the day asking the secretary to > obtain sufficient project consensus before changing how voting works. The secretary would still have to run a vote to make a statement of the day, so it might as well still require a supermajority. [Alternatively, we could write in a self-deleting section which only required a majority to remove its effect... but that seems complicated.] On Sat, 26 Feb 2022, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I plan to look at least at belenios is voting by email is no longer > required. My plan is to run at least a small test to see if people > like it or not. I could maybe also run a larger poll. But we'll see > about how we pick a different system, or not, later. Looks interesting. I know (having hacked up devotee to make pocket-devotee) that the plumbing around these systems is complicated; I'd certainly love to see a solution which has a larger community contributing to it. -- Don Armstrong https://www.donarmstrong.com Fate and Temperament are two words for one and the same concept. -- Novalis [Hermann Hesse _Demian_]
