On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:12 AM Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I think, 4K puts the bar very high (that would require 20 people).
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 12:39 PM Bill Blough wrote:
> However, to generate further discussion, I do agree with Judit [1] that
> 4K seems like a high bar.
Hi Judit, Bill,
Hi Bill,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 07:36:02PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> A suggestion:
>
> An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
> accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether
> they did not not).
>
> This would still allow voters to
hi Bill,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:12:44PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Anyway, how do we proceed here?
> We should merge them! Maybe you could suggest a new wording ?
given that my proposal already showed up on
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001#textc could I please ask you
(or
Hi,
A general resolution about voting secrecy has been started. Details about
it are available at: https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001
Kurt Roeckx
Debian Project Secretary
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
According to the constitution (5.2. Appointment), project
leader elections should begin "six weeks before the leadership
post becomes vacant, or (if it is too late already) immediately."
The new project leader term starts on 2022-04-21. The time line
looks like:
| Period | Start
Hi Holger (2022.03.04_10:42:51_+)
> And then, early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this, which
> is also why I explicitly want to see "keep the status quo" on the ballot,
> and not only as "NOTA", but as a real option.
If we were to have such an option on the ballot, my
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> > The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
> > probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to
> > achieve fully,
Hi,
I've put up an initial page about the GR at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2022/vote_001
I didn't have time yet to properly record all the seconds yet, but
believe the 3 option there all have the required amount of seconds,
and are the only options that reached that. The 3rd option reached
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> So reading A.1.4 again, I can also see it as just saying that it really
> updates when the period is over. I think it would have just been more
> clear if A.1.1 said "The initial discussion period is 2 weeks."
Agreed. I'm sorry that I missed that.
--
Russ Allbery
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:54:19AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes:
>
> > I've been reading our new constitution about the discussion period. What
> > I find is this in A.1.1:
> > The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed and
> > sponsored. The minimum
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:12:23PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> One easy way for you to do that would be to send a diff to the spacing.
> I could then update my branch and use the typo correction procedure in
> the constitution to get this fixed.
Or we can just leave it to the maintainer of the
> "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
Ansgar> Would removing the trailing space introduced by these
Ansgar> changes require a separate GR? There are also other similar
Ansgar> inconsistencies, e.g., one space vs. two spaces after a
Ansgar> period.
There are a number of cases where
Hi,
On 04/03/22 at 19:36 +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> A suggestion:
>
> An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
> accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether
> they did not not).
>
> This would still allow voters to check the vote but
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> I've been reading our new constitution about the discussion period. What
> I find is this in A.1.1:
> The discussion period starts when a draft resolution is proposed and
> sponsored. The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The maximum
> discussion period is 3 weeks.
>
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 01:54:36PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I also believe this advances the end of the discussion period to next
> Thursday (although other actions may advance the end of the discussion
> period further).
I've been reading our new constitution about the discussion period.
A suggestion:
An alternative to secret vote would be to make the vote tallies only
accessible by DD (or more generally to people allowed to vote, whether
they did not not).
This would still allow voters to check the vote but would not allow
outside parties to use it (unless some DD leaks it,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 04:24:46PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > A voting system which is transparent only to some, is undemocratic and
> > will lead to few people in the know, which is diagonal to Debians goals
> > of openness and transparency.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here. From some
On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 13:54 -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 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.-]{++}
The unified diff for this looks like:
-
I second the ballot option quoted below.
However, to generate further discussion, I do agree with Judit [1] that
4K seems like a high bar.
In a general sense, if the bar is too high then the result might be
indistinguishable from not allowing secret votes at all. Of course the
opposite could be
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
I know Holger's and Bill's proposed options are prone to change and
merge, but I'll say it now and probably reaffirm it later:
I second this option.
While I prefer Harlan's, it has failed to gain sponsors, and I don't
want to risk the complete loss of public votes in Debian. I think the
Hello,
Le 04/03/2022 à 11:42, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
> probably because secret and transparent voting is, well, impossible to
> achieve fully, [...]
It is possible to achieve some reasonable level of secrecy and
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:21:04PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> hi Bill,
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:10:53AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Ballot Option
> > =
> >
> > 1) The Debian project decide against changing its voting process at this
> > time.
> >
> > 2) General
On 2022-03-04 13:15, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> Is init systems GR a political GR?
>
> yet there are people maintaining systemd and sysv in public.
How is that relevant?
I'm neither a systemd nor sysv maintainer, but
El 04/03/22 a las 12:03, Mattia Rizzolo escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Reaffirm public voting
> > ==
> >
> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
> > open and transparent voting, the project
* Bill Allombert: " GR Ballot Option: (first draft) No change to voting,
recommend against GR for non-technical issues" (Thu, 3 Mar 2022 00:10:53
+0100):
> Dear developers,
>
> I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
>
> Ballot Option
> =
>
> 1) The Debian
* Philip Hands: " Re: Reaffirm public voting" (Fri, 04 Mar 2022 13:23:32 +0100):
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> > Reaffirm public voting
> >> >
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> > Reaffirm public voting
>> > ==
>> >
>> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
>>
hi Bill,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:10:53AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Ballot Option
> =
>
> 1) The Debian project decide against changing its voting process at this
> time.
>
> 2) General resolutions that probe developpers opinions about non-technical
> issues
> outside the
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 06:41:54AM -0500, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure some gave double thoughts before voting because of the
> > shitstorm/flame that had happened before the vote.
>
> This has been argued
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
> Is init systems GR a political GR?
yet there are people maintaining systemd and sysv in public.
so what's next, secret maintainers?
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
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
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:14:56PM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>
> Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 04/03/2022 at 12:03:22+0100:
>
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 0816B9E18C762BAD Mattia
> > Rizzolo ]]
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >>
Mattia Rizzolo wrote on 04/03/2022 at 12:03:22+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Signature made by expired key 0816B9E18C762BAD Mattia
> Rizzolo ]]
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Reaffirm public voting
>> ==
>>
>> Since we can either have
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:03:22PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > Reaffirm public voting
> > ==
> >
> > Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
> > open and transparent voting,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 10:42:51AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Reaffirm public voting
> ==
>
> Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
> open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting
> system as it is.
>
> Rationale:
Reaffirm public voting
==
Since we can either have secret and intransparent voting, or we can have
open and transparent voting, the project resolves to leave our voting
system as it is.
Rationale:
The GR proposal for secret voting is silent on implenentation details,
Hi,
I'm still happy with sponsoring the following ballot option.
Sam Hartman wrote on 03/03/2022 at 21:54:36+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 2C6C4C3CA8378674 created at
> 2022-03-03T21:54:36+0100 using EDDSA]]
>
> I hereby amend the ballot option I proposed using the procedure in
38 matches
Mail list logo
