> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:12:57PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> > "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes:
>>
>> >> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm"
>> and >> "their":
>> >>
>> >> {+ public, but
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:12:57PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes:
>
> >> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and
> >> "their":
> >>
> >> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that
> >>
> >> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and
> >> "their":
> >>
> >> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that
> >> their vote is included in the votes+} cast.
>
> Judit> I agree. It makes this option diverge a bit from the
> "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes:
>> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and
>> "their":
>>
>> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that
>> their vote is included in the votes+} cast.
Judit> I agree. It makes
> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and "their":
>
> {+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that their
> vote is included in the votes+} cast.
I agree.
It makes this option diverge a bit from the Option A it was forked from,
but since the
Hi Judit,
> I think it would be clearer to add "that" between "confirm" and "their":
{+ public, but developers will be given an option to confirm that their
vote is included in the votes+} cast.
Please proceed either way, at your choosing.
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
signature.asc
Hi Judit,
it might be a bit late for a change now, but at first I had some
difficulties parsing the last added sentence in 4.2:
Judit Foglszinger writes:
> 4.2. Procedure
> @@ -228,9 +246,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.
>
>Votes are taken by the Project
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> I completely agree with separating *unrelated* changes, but
Russ> the whole point of this discussion is that some folks believe
Russ> the changes are closely related, to the extent that one of the
Russ> changes may not be desirable
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 09:34:01AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> While I'm personally probably more worried about how calls for votes are
> disseminated than about how the voting mechanism itself works, the
> proposed change feels like a slippery slope towards the possibility that
> how voting
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 05:44:34AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I propose a ballot option for the GR
> "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote"
> that makes the following changes to the constitution.
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote
* Judit Foglszinger: " Ballot option 2 - Merely hide Identities of Developers
Casting a Particular Vote and allow verification" (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 05:44:34
+0700):
I sponsor this option.
Like others said: changing the vote system should be proposed in a
separate GR.
> I propose a ballot
On 2022-02-23 17 h 44, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I propose a ballot option for the GR
> "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote"
> that makes the following changes to the constitution.
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote public.
>
> 6) Codify
Sam Hartman writes:
> Even if you don't want to move toward some different voting system, do
> we really want to require a constitutional amendment if say the
> secretary wanted to move voting to a salsa-authenticated website to make
> it easier and more accessible to our members?
Yes.
While
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> Right -- the voting system allows for this quite well. But it requires
> twisting each of the voters' minds around a set of sometimes convoluted
> changesets that might lead to fatigue. The practice of not bundling
> leads to simpler texts and easier evaluation and
Russ Allbery dijo [Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:17:10AM -0800]:
> > Suppose no other options are present. Judit's option wins, yours is
> > second, and NotA is third. A simplistic reading would mean, "merge
> > Judit's proposed changes in the constitution". However, more people
> > voted 3 and 4 above
Gunnar Wolf writes:
> If this is right, Sam, let me politely ask you to unbundle. Not only due
> to Martin's argument (the scar of "editorial changes" we all had to
> endure and understand a little too late), but also to keep each of the
> choices as simple and clear as possible -- and to avoid
Sam Hartman dijo [Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 05:20:49PM -0700]:
> > "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr writes:
>
> Yes, I think 3) and 4) are much more important in hidden votes.
If this is right, Sam, let me politely ask you to unbundle. Not only
due to Martin's argument (the scar of "editorial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
I like this option. Let's place it on the ballot. Thanks!
Kind regards,
Felix Lechner
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:44:34 PM EST Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I propose a ballot option for the GR
> "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a
> "Martin" == Martin Michlmayr writes:
Yes, I think 3) and 4) are much more important in hidden votes.
Even without 2, the constitution gives the secretary significant
flexibility in how the voting system is set up.
With hidden votes, several of us believe it is more likely that people
* Sam Hartman [2022-02-23 16:22]:
> Even if you don't want to move toward some different voting system, do
> we really want to require a constitutional amendment if say the
...
Sam, I haven't followed the discussion closely, but when I read your
ballot I was *immediately* concerned about 3) and
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 6:22:00 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes:
> Judit> Give the opportunity to vote for secret voting without
> Judit> needing to additionally vote for unrelated/only slightly
> Judit> related constitution changes; for
Seconded/sponsored.
Scott K
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 5:44:34 PM EST Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> I propose a ballot option for the GR
> "Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote"
> that makes the following changes to the constitution.
>
> 1) Do not make the identity of a
> "Judit" == Judit Foglszinger writes:
Judit> Give the opportunity to vote for secret voting without
Judit> needing to additionally vote for unrelated/only slightly
Judit> related constitution changes; for example for the change of
Judit> mode of voting from email to
I propose a ballot option for the GR
"Hide Identities of Developers Casting a Particular Vote"
that makes the following changes to the constitution.
1) Do not make the identity of a voter casting a particular vote public.
6) Codify that our election system must permit independent verification
24 matches
Mail list logo
