-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello everyone,

I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:

Rationale
========
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be
publicly revealed may cause them to change their vote (or opt out of
the election), even among divisive GRs, few rise to that level of
controversy: the RMS GR and the systemd GR being two recent examples
which have provoked ire.

There is something which fundamentally distinguishes the kind of
voting that Debian does from that of a private institution or group,
where minutes and votes are typically kept out of public view: Debian
serves a larger community than the members of the institution. In
that sense, we are more similar to a public body than a private
membership.

Our Social Contract makes this distinction clear: when it says that we
will not hide problems, it immediately emphasizes that the bug
database will be open for public view at all times. Taking the step
to make a particular vote secret should require us to stop and
carefully weigh the costs to the larger community.

I hope this option better strikes the balance between the aspirations
of public visibility and the occasional, pragmatic need for secrecy.

Ballot Option
==========
The changes are available at: https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/82729d07aba7dd7ac641f7e4a87178f34b23efca

A diff follows (the word diff is very confusing, so I've omitted it):

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml index 41cb9dfbd80..7924992d3a7 100644
- --- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -226,12 +226,15 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>

<li>
<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. The voting
- - period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the
- - Project Leader.
+ Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting period. + After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast, unless + either one of the following is true:
</p>
+ <ol>
+ <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in &sect;5.2.</p></li>
+ <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot option
+ which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
+ </ol>
</li>

<li>


- --
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
~hlieberman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEELyAgabIlUqb16FUfGikbTg3OS1cFAmIe7pJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDJG MjAyMDY5QjIyNTUyQTZGNUU4NTUxRjFBMjkxQjRFMERDRTRCNTcACgkQGikbTg3O S1d5zQ/9F9rMHgeOnEyXWkZ1gIAabwjzY5IedPkoEGECaGz9uiYA446J/Q+jH5V6 blDNcTmy3VL8YxrPJ1NKhwYpF7SCL0QxUnCXiFtp5UFYzCiDWqWGHM4UbqPMZxox 8Z3/oDu7W5N8aa9GHSsL0f6aHtxBHxIS/CnA+wtOIGuGEpHQRxGhqQ0P17pbPkDn bOMbPC9x2Sve2bwzZ4hlvCySRGVorwKNWsvjZ7LWCc5k6a1ZLBYFQK065J6l17NN 6+rEBZ8yJ6UHnQ9wH1Y7loM8B4Z35qgf6MwXyeqMYHSRSrmfAc2uIp/EL4FStig2 4wWiNEyN6QuWkR75Tr3ZSNC+2NF3ptRmM+gc2nBWhz6Zx+yVm5JmvRHkGQfsTrRD 0NtVTflHIOHGsFHYj16IHmC1Xvu/9OHvf4bQumahIG88Rz58Zgsi965FaDTRn5di FtAxKoxsqzvKAe0OJkUHOnSVnv3w95UNg0uco5tgbUmDYISlFYNTHav0gL1EQBR2 GeNYNlJP6zlFEu6uxZuXlfv3BLNvQ4Yc2miE9Rv14bKEd1QizPVUGpX5YR8a89Ph QF2tSdy62MFqRrV9VKmheEnNb2uNsttFJci6ZBjci32zP6mMMFEgUuvgfl2CaMbG MUBi7dtjYkoL3IQuj+OsF5VKZLq2ERJhIDf8mogzetUWNT8aQVo=
=5e/l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------bGM90aYx8b8Gv80Rx0ghckor
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

T24gMy8xLzIyIDIzOjEzLCBIYXJsYW4gTGllYmVybWFuLUJlcmcgd3JvdGU6DQo+IEhlbGxv IGV2ZXJ5b25lLA0KPg0KPiBJIHByb3Bvc2UgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBiYWxsb3Qgb3B0aW9u IGZvciB0aGUgY3VycmVudCBHUjoNCj4NCj4gUmF0aW9uYWxlDQo+ID09PT09PT09DQo+IFdo aWxlIEkgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBhcmUgc29tZSB2b3RlcyB3aGljaCwgZHVlIHRvIHRo ZWlyIG5hdHVyZSwNCj4gbWF5IGJlIHNvIGNvbnRyb3ZlcnNpYWwgdGhhdCB0aGUgcG90ZW50 aWFsIGZvciBhIHBlcnNvbidzIHZvdGVzIHRvIGJlDQo+IHB1YmxpY2x5IHJldmVhbGVkIG1h eSBjYXVzZSB0aGVtIHRvIGNoYW5nZSB0aGVpciB2b3RlIChvciBvcHQgb3V0IG9mDQo+IHRo ZSBlbGVjdGlvbiksIGV2ZW4gYW1vbmcgZGl2aXNpdmUgR1JzLCBmZXcgcmlzZSB0byB0aGF0 IGxldmVsIG9mDQo+IGNvbnRyb3ZlcnN5OiB0aGUgUk1TIEdSIGFuZCB0aGUgc3lzdGVtZCBH UiBiZWluZyB0d28gcmVjZW50IGV4YW1wbGVzDQo+IHdoaWNoIGhhdmUgcHJvdm9rZWQgaXJl Lg0KPg0KPiBUaGVyZSBpcyBzb21ldGhpbmcgd2hpY2ggZnVuZGFtZW50YWxseSBkaXN0aW5n dWlzaGVzIHRoZSBraW5kIG9mDQo+IHZvdGluZyB0aGF0IERlYmlhbiBkb2VzIGZyb20gdGhh dCBvZiBhIHByaXZhdGUgaW5zdGl0dXRpb24gb3IgZ3JvdXAsDQo+IHdoZXJlIG1pbnV0ZXMg YW5kIHZvdGVzIGFyZSB0eXBpY2FsbHkga2VwdCBvdXQgb2YgcHVibGljIHZpZXc6IERlYmlh bg0KPiBzZXJ2ZXMgYSBsYXJnZXIgY29tbXVuaXR5IHRoYW4gdGhlIG1lbWJlcnMgb2YgdGhl IGluc3RpdHV0aW9uLsKgIEluDQo+IHRoYXQgc2Vuc2UsIHdlIGFyZSBtb3JlIHNpbWlsYXIg dG8gYSBwdWJsaWMgYm9keSB0aGFuIGEgcHJpdmF0ZQ0KPiBtZW1iZXJzaGlwLg0KPg0KPiBP dXIgU29jaWFsIENvbnRyYWN0IG1ha2VzIHRoaXMgZGlzdGluY3Rpb24gY2xlYXI6IHdoZW4g aXQgc2F5cyB0aGF0IHdlDQo+IHdpbGwgbm90IGhpZGUgcHJvYmxlbXMsIGl0IGltbWVkaWF0 ZWx5IGVtcGhhc2l6ZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgYnVnDQo+IGRhdGFiYXNlIHdpbGwgYmUgb3BlbiBm b3IgcHVibGljIHZpZXcgYXQgYWxsIHRpbWVzLsKgwqAgVGFraW5nIHRoZSBzdGVwDQo+IHRv IG1ha2UgYSBwYXJ0aWN1bGFyIHZvdGUgc2VjcmV0IHNob3VsZCByZXF1aXJlIHVzIHRvIHN0 b3AgYW5kDQo+IGNhcmVmdWxseSB3ZWlnaCB0aGUgY29zdHMgdG8gdGhlIGxhcmdlciBjb21t dW5pdHkuDQo+DQo+IEkgaG9wZSB0aGlzIG9wdGlvbiBiZXR0ZXIgc3RyaWtlcyB0aGUgYmFs YW5jZSBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBhc3BpcmF0aW9ucw0KPiBvZiBwdWJsaWMgdmlzaWJpbGl0eSBh bmQgdGhlIG9jY2FzaW9uYWwsIHByYWdtYXRpYyBuZWVkIGZvciBzZWNyZWN5Lg0KPg0KPiBC YWxsb3QgT3B0aW9uDQo+ID09PT09PT09PT0NCj4gVGhlIGNoYW5nZXMgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJs ZSBhdDoNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly9zYWxzYS5kZWJpYW4ub3JnL2hsaWViZXJtYW4vd2Vid21sLy0v Y29tbWl0LzgyNzI5ZDA3YWJhN2RkN2FjNjQxZjdlNGE4NzE3OGYzNGIyM2VmY2ENCj4NCj4g QSBkaWZmIGZvbGxvd3MgKHRoZSB3b3JkIGRpZmYgaXMgdmVyeSBjb25mdXNpbmcsIHNvIEkn dmUgb21pdHRlZCBpdCk6DQo+DQo+IGRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9lbmdsaXNoL2RldmVsL2NvbnN0 aXR1dGlvbi53bWwgDQo+IGIvZW5nbGlzaC9kZXZlbC9jb25zdGl0dXRpb24ud21sDQo+IGlu ZGV4IDQxY2I5ZGZiZDgwLi43OTI0OTkyZDNhNyAxMDA2NDQNCj4gLS0tIGEvZW5nbGlzaC9k ZXZlbC9jb25zdGl0dXRpb24ud21sDQo+ICsrKyBiL2VuZ2xpc2gvZGV2ZWwvY29uc3RpdHV0 aW9uLndtbA0KPiBAQCAtMjI2LDEyICsyMjYsMTUgQEAgZWFybGllciBjYW4gb3ZlcnJ1bGUg ZXZlcnlvbmUgbGlzdGVkIA0KPiBsYXRlci48L2NpdGU+PC9wPg0KPg0KPiDCoMKgIDxsaT4N Cj4gwqDCoMKgwqAgPHA+DQo+IC3CoMKgwqDCoMKgwqAgVm90ZXMgYXJlIHRha2VuIGJ5IHRo ZSBQcm9qZWN0IFNlY3JldGFyeS4gVm90ZXMsIHRhbGxpZXMsIGFuZA0KPiAtwqDCoMKgwqDC oMKgIHJlc3VsdHMgYXJlIG5vdCByZXZlYWxlZCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIHZvdGluZyBwZXJpb2Q7 IGFmdGVyIHRoZQ0KPiAtwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgIHZvdGUgdGhlIFByb2plY3QgU2VjcmV0YXJ5 IGxpc3RzIGFsbCB0aGUgdm90ZXMgY2FzdC4gVGhlIHZvdGluZw0KPiAtwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKg IHBlcmlvZCBpcyAyIHdlZWtzLCBidXQgbWF5IGJlIHZhcmllZCBieSB1cCB0byAxIHdlZWsg YnkgdGhlDQo+IC3CoMKgwqDCoMKgwqAgUHJvamVjdCBMZWFkZXIuDQo+ICvCoMKgwqDCoMKg wqAgVm90ZXMsIHRhbGxpZXMsIGFuZCByZXN1bHRzIGFyZSBub3QgcmV2ZWFsZWQgZHVyaW5n IHRoZSB2b3RpbmcgDQo+IHBlcmlvZC4NCj4gK8KgwqDCoMKgwqDCoCBBZnRlciB0aGUgdm90 ZSwgdGhlIFByb2plY3QgU2VjcmV0YXJ5IGxpc3RzIGFsbCB0aGUgdm90ZXMgDQo+IGNhc3Qs IHVubGVzcw0KPiArwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgIGVpdGhlciBvbmUgb2YgdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBp cyB0cnVlOg0KPiDCoMKgwqDCoCA8L3A+DQo+ICvCoMKgwqAgPG9sPg0KPiArwqDCoMKgwqDC oMKgIDxsaT48cD5UaGUgdm90ZSBpcyBmb3IgYSBsZWFkZXJzaGlwIGVsZWN0aW9uIGFzIGRl ZmluZWQgaW4NCj4gJnNlY3Q7NS4yLjwvcD48L2xpPg0KPiArwqDCoMKgwqDCoMKgIDxsaT48 cD5BdCBsZWFzdCA0SyBEZXZlbG9wZXJzIGhhdmUgc3BvbnNvcmVkIGFueSBzaW5nbGUgYmFs bG90IA0KPiBvcHRpb24NCj4gK8KgwqDCoMKgwqDCoCB3aGljaCBzYXlzIHRoZSB2b3RlcyB3 aWxsIGJlIGtlcHQgc2VjcmV0LjwvcD48L2xpPg0KPiArwqDCoMKgIDwvb2w+DQo+IMKgwqAg PC9saT4NCj4NCj4gwqDCoCA8bGk+DQoNCg0KUmVzZW5kaW5nIHdpdGggbm90LWNsZWFyc2ln bmVkIHNpZ25hdHVyZSB0aGlzIHRpbWUuDQoNCg0K

--------------bGM90aYx8b8Gv80Rx0ghckor--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEELyAgabIlUqb16FUfGikbTg3OS1cFAmIe9elfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDJG MjAyMDY5QjIyNTUyQTZGNUU4NTUxRjFBMjkxQjRFMERDRTRCNTcACgkQGikbTg3O S1f/FA/9FAYsXrOovgZza1ZqxlafPWrNbrKAsbjqNP1pd1PeBW4YI4EhvpwN5HbZ luyMA+LomG1Yrfz6jJe5L8ri3UGch2HHM4Lr3BCbFlF4srcYRIwR1LoRhNYsxhwS YnSqxZG5JOxq9pU60zcioPDpMLiOwnU/aWyXDWe0Dy/vTvzEROxNuESPg07hm+EK klQJ3PRUeN438jhimwFyGvx/G+11NBfxSvI59L0G1zyF9Xv2T0aaWrWYr35kpfnH CgGLisBhK0GasUfJeS1RVQZAypE/4TlgsLo5ei0BVSj1B+qcQIYLCH0uDrpGNBG9 Zd/1h178bS8cbOjRWXsW8SfWUI+RPQmqevKAmlOZhY4L0s1Ek5jmfvXw/AkfluDz H5mXBtOlbXZJdEDeJNuH9jHrY5lLcKfmJugLRWEzXJQy8mrmCoEALQu1L7c9ajxc 6QjAv4OIp20MfYpm9XgFbD5Bl2+jTYujjCGtnoe39iSTIqfEzy/yYw9mOrJjusRQ WCpixn98XWeTZNFNBQj+7shD9pXD58jupGSumzYtmILOkoy530eZ1OS3y9UEOmPE uHjpfUcCqjrnxW1esWeyr0RBHa1j9BHW4jIhAvOV06YcYUq3QVFhy1ifi/XPqeu6 z2osncjGsK3pdK3L9eUDf/EuqtJjHONwl1XyF1/LeX0CEUsAPt8=
=kSvV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io> writes:

On 3/1/22 23:13, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:

Hello everyone,

I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:

Rationale
========
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be
publicly revealed may cause them to change their vote (or opt out of
the election), even among divisive GRs, few rise to that level of
controversy: the RMS GR and the systemd GR being two recent examples
which have provoked ire.

There is something which fundamentally distinguishes the kind of
voting that Debian does from that of a private institution or group,
where minutes and votes are typically kept out of public view: Debian
serves a larger community than the members of the institution.  In
that sense, we are more similar to a public body than a private
membership.

Our Social Contract makes this distinction clear: when it says that we
will not hide problems, it immediately emphasizes that the bug
database will be open for public view at all times.   Taking the step
to make a particular vote secret should require us to stop and
carefully weigh the costs to the larger community.

I hope this option better strikes the balance between the aspirations
of public visibility and the occasional, pragmatic need for secrecy.

Ballot Option
==========
The changes are available at:
https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/82729d07aba7dd7ac641f7e4a87178f34b23efca

A diff follows (the word diff is very confusing, so I've omitted it):

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml
b/english/devel/constitution.wml
index 41cb9dfbd80..7924992d3a7 100644
--- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -226,12 +226,15 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed
later.</cite></p>

   <li>
     <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. The voting
-       period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the
-       Project Leader.
+       Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting
period.
+       After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes
cast, unless
+       either one of the following is true:
     </p>
+    <ol>
+       <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in
&sect;5.2.</p></li>
+       <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot
option
+       which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>

Does this not force people that would like to keep their vote secret to
publish that fact in order for it to happen (which might well hint
strongly at how they are likely to vote)?

In reaction to that flaw I suspect you'd then end up with a bunch of public-spirited folk suggesting that option for every vote, in order to
cater to a presumed need for privacy by others.

If that's the case we could save everyone the effort by just making all
votes secret.

How about people being able to request a secret ballot in private, by
asking the secretary, who would keep a tally of requests and announce
whether the vote was to be secret before voting started?

BTW I had been persuaded that the published-only-internally option was
not really good enough by subsequent discussion, which is why I've not
proposed such an amendment, but perhaps the combination of published-only-internally with option-to-go-secret would actually be
worth having as a ballot option.

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

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEE3/FBWs4yJ/zyBwfW0EujoAEl1cAFAmIfHiAACgkQ0EujoAEl 1cCGtw//do5rRPy7iY8iBMl4uGVUFloRZriA7oSmEHaFGo2cgRhYTiwb4daFRtEL nDKMcIS64G489AImR9t5n0CreaH5g43qS0mMyh4+C/4tNsxu2DVHH94da3wCak7b 6W2UkpWOqz2UMeu+7xHLwmIvPQ/d9qGBluAjqmQOq3Ap2yK7ZIOHRkYoAXEtwa2s u/9GImaCjb24eS+xVtNA4kVQ+HVfOPLZkQQBG5ge3w7jrJetdgNLh7K9pdpXaepD Nr+qQ8e4c3eG5EVkGG8PQXO9yvT33V40qLwq9KHw4vObb3TDM9gcvUTjX51WeVWL H3OlRmNV8KLe3+5CVx9ESoe6cxVI6oVJomliqS9Clv6KcqXK8ed2B9Jup/MFUGCc bYMTrHBA4je909YPWiz2uQj/PPOuKM/2s2jbQ+SGSBR423SmJaU/oxZJfbFJ9KhR EIpGMqVUjg/UBv6sFyw7fvnw+urXg/F5vsUlwUif24gQgMzQpRqzL4NTYsGTCPqA JL0qOMY1Mzv4yXVRZgHJ9aviTFC0OsHpcdvAUOUaHE85slzpEfW2e0d0L/bnSQXy 9N0sbm1cO5ZB0ZdMlwbIiTKGuKWnfL37xmF4Rez5Q/zH27acljLkr0ziCRHokUE2 rrOXr+qibXSrXz0

Harlan Lieberman-Berg, 2022-03-01:

The changes are available at: https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/82729d07aba7dd7ac641f7e4a87178f34b23efca

A diff follows (the word diff is very confusing, so I've omitted it):

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml index 41cb9dfbd80..7924992d3a7 100644
- --- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -226,12 +226,15 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>

<li>
<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. The voting
- - period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the
- - Project Leader.
+ Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting period.
+ After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast, unless
+ either one of the following is true:
</p>
+ <ol>
+ <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in &sect;5.2.</p></li>
+ <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot option + which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
+ </ol>
</li>

<li>

Seconded.

Taowa

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQTIelLvei7diK6KFY/yAsiXDJi5PwUCYh+MpwAKCRDyAsiXDJi5 P5cCAQDQJgq/547BST9n2x3hzMfTw5C3O3WKgLV/OUGfW8mBBQEAz6F8jWxbktgK /BW6BCcRHO3ey1/GvH4q1PADMeAyIgQ=
=IX8i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Philip Hands dijo [Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:34:56AM +0100]:

Does this not force people that would like to keep their vote secret to publish that fact in order for it to happen (which might well hint
strongly at how they are likely to vote)?

Might be. But people feeling any pressure due to the public nature of
the votes unless they raise a hand can also approach other DDs
privately / discretely asking for a private-vote-by-proxy request.

In reaction to that flaw I suspect you'd then end up with a bunch of public-spirited folk suggesting that option for every vote, in order to
cater to a presumed need for privacy by others.

It might be the case. But I prefer the option for public voting to be
there, and I would ask people not to boycott this transparency
_feature_ of Debian if they don't have a real reason to.

How about people being able to request a secret ballot in private, by
asking the secretary, who would keep a tally of requests and announce
whether the vote was to be secret before voting started?

I would not oppose this, given we trust the Secretary; I guess we
would trust him saying "I've been contacted in private, and will thus
conduct this vote as secret". But, again, asking for public requesters
brings forward transparency.

BTW I had been persuaded that the published-only-internally option was
not really good enough by subsequent discussion, which is why I've not proposed such an amendment, but perhaps the combination of published-only-internally with option-to-go-secret would actually be
worth having as a ballot option.

If we had AS=always-secret, ANRS=allow-but-not-require-secret-voting,
and POIWSO=published-only-internally-with-secret-option, I would vote
ANRS > POIWSO > AS, and would have to debate with myself the relative
ordering of AS and NotA.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRgswk9lhCOXLlxQu/i9jtDU/RZiQUCYh+e5AAKCRDi9jtDU/RZ iaTaAQDf9ploWCXPS0MKhfdqpEW5yA/S/0Prfqbn6f6WLoNspwEA/FS5cfFVLs4N nmi27gDAgywZUHFAb3zih/9KpBBn4w0=
=7uOE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I hereby second Harlan's option. Thanks a lot for taking the word for
writing it down and presenting the rationale!

Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:43:20PM -0500]:

On 3/1/22 23:13, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:

Hello everyone,

I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:

Rationale
========
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be publicly revealed may cause them to change their vote (or opt out of
the election), even among divisive GRs, few rise to that level of controversy: the RMS GR and the systemd GR being two recent examples
which have provoked ire.

There is something which fundamentally distinguishes the kind of
voting that Debian does from that of a private institution or group,
where minutes and votes are typically kept out of public view: Debian serves a larger community than the members of the institution.  In
that sense, we are more similar to a public body than a private
membership.

Our Social Contract makes this distinction clear: when it says that we
will not hide problems, it immediately emphasizes that the bug
database will be open for public view at all times.   Taking the step
to make a particular vote secret should require us to stop and
carefully weigh the costs to the larger community.

I hope this option better strikes the balance between the aspirations
of public visibility and the occasional, pragmatic need for secrecy.

Ballot Option
==========
The changes are available at: https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/82729d07aba7dd7ac641f7e4a87178f34b23efca

A diff follows (the word diff is very confusing, so I've omitted it):

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml
index 41cb9dfbd80..7924992d3a7 100644
--- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -226,12 +226,15 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>

   <li>
     <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. The voting
-       period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the -       Project Leader.
+       Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting
period.
+       After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast,
unless
+       either one of the following is true:
     </p>
+    <ol>
+       <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in &sect;5.2.</p></li>
+       <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot
option
+       which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
+    </ol>
   </li>

   <li>

Resending with not-clearsigned signature this time.

--


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRgswk9lhCOXLlxQu/i9jtDU/RZiQUCYh+dYQAKCRDi9jtDU/RZ icx8AQC3/Ag49nU/SqNZefHhW3hMfUjzFfIU9PpJFE48ArO7SgEA0igpQ3bT73N0 xkMuPiYepXGNZg5s/TYqH6OBadaurwc=
=XKq1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:

Hello everyone,

I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:

Rationale
========
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be publicly revealed may cause them to change their vote (or opt out of
the election), even among divisive GRs, few rise to that level of controversy: the RMS GR and the systemd GR being two recent examples
which have provoked ire.

There is something which fundamentally distinguishes the kind of
voting that Debian does from that of a private institution or group,
where minutes and votes are typically kept out of public view: Debian
serves a larger community than the members of the institution. In
that sense, we are more similar to a public body than a private
membership.

Our Social Contract makes this distinction clear: when it says that we
will not hide problems, it immediately emphasizes that the bug
database will be open for public view at all times. Taking the step
to make a particular vote secret should require us to stop and
carefully weigh the costs to the larger community.

I hope this option better strikes the balance between the aspirations
of public visibility and the occasional, pragmatic need for secrecy.

I have argued against this notion that private votes in some way
contradicts our principles of transparency�, but that got no replies whatsoever.

� https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Yg+tfywh09xmPZFM@debian.org

I think that is a reasonable concern, but I'm not sure how exactly we
are losing transparency here. Let's see; if we were to decide that all
votes are public, then:

- the discussion of the GR itself, the formulation of ballot options,
and the debate about them, is still public and transparent; or at
least as public and transparent as they currently are.

- the final ballot and the call for votes are still public.

- the positions of all the people who participated in the public
discussions is still public.

- the only change is that after the vote, you cannot see how exactly
each individual voted. I understand the argument that Debian decisions
are of public interest. But how exactly being able to know how each of
us voted helps with that? Are we harvesting peoples votes to be able
to throw stuff in their faces stuff like "You say that now, but back
in the day when we voted on XXX you favored YYY? You are part of the
problem!".

I get that knowing what people you like/respect/admire/collaborate
think about an issue can be useful to form your own opinion, but
that's only really useful if done before the vote, not after. And for
that you would need to ask them explicitly anyway.

I cannot see how having a complete audit trail of how every individual
voted helps with anything. At all. I think that's even a bit creepy.

(and with that I am in no way implying that the fellow project members
who are in favor of keeping votes public have creepy intentions)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEst7mYDbECCn80PEM/A2xu81GC94FAmIf87YACgkQ/A2xu81G C959tQ//U+Ml6apOnak9Vm4KrcVjkr4f0KiD09KQgBwIoTTo+tg5xfeddqve62/n nWKfpaQ8C2TVaBOdXQVhm7VkASIrYEqpHETJXmD0BhWuq1Uu06GImNX8QWGoD2kr ughpdgFFMtLT00XWGLyBX57juYEmiKCeNCgBOpIfPW6ruTEHwJh7OG9I3+LebZWB 7NrGdeT2H6F5RwokYHCffDjuFl5BB7xXhTy9FRHZ/Q2wH6PAWLT4kHafyGvuHb8N HMWcr43AkxuBMGHbl51cFgDulQjqED4Bn6CoheSnAqmhUG+3c2an5CElwYJmWwy1 j9eH60SDdiouHeWN+yXtPszlT1UGH4t7lpF/jjUhvn+QHpv3oyWznuWghWI9+GXx 32S2qsusiinZe+mft/vS8DBx0T9fcSbpnR+oYiIDlQsYVj524X3wVZYp8MHi+XZ5 I8pNMD9wi3WJG5+35JpKpNY5tzwA1TFn/T27gyKaZqyCOKmcXdos0P5J0XpkIGKi NxwzMgWnoHM6jLc8SYtH++qCyrSAjwtrJv+Nz9JxPvfcAYmziA8Mzd9HvcbkpiHd ifeOmx4PCilsL1qlsXf28N6p9lkjwNUCdb8CCLUU+9d2DG0PVG7uFfjCSVOd//fX NOo6s9Gln8pUoc5QVhiYRw/er3yJJUpkKL960V+H9DBLz87TaKM=
=bpbv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:46:16PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]

I have argued against this notion that private votes in some way
contradicts our principles of transparency�, but that got no replies whatsoever.

� https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Yg+tfywh09xmPZFM@debian.org

I think that is a reasonable concern, but I'm not sure how exactly we
are losing transparency here. Let's see; if we were to decide that all
votes are public, then:

s/public/private?

- the discussion of the GR itself, the formulation of ballot options,
and the debate about them, is still public and transparent; or at
least as public and transparent as they currently are.

- the final ballot and the call for votes are still public.

- the positions of all the people who participated in the public
discussions is still public.

- the only change is that after the vote, you cannot see how exactly
each individual voted. I understand the argument that Debian decisions
are of public interest. But how exactly being able to know how each of
us voted helps with that? Are we harvesting peoples votes to be able
to throw stuff in their faces stuff like "You say that now, but back
in the day when we voted on XXX you favored YYY? You are part of the
problem!".

I get that knowing what people you like/respect/admire/collaborate
think about an issue can be useful to form your own opinion, but
that's only really useful if done before the vote, not after. And for
that you would need to ask them explicitly anyway.

Agreed, I don't believe that individual position on votes make the project more transparent. Nor internally, as Terceiro well pointed. Nor externally, since DDs don't represent anyone but themselves inside the project.

Even if I happen to be convinced that votes being public brings a few extra bits of transparency, I'd probably think it still makes more harm than good.

Regarding the 'public as an option' ballot: it's not hard to imagine a(nother) controversial GR where people voting X>Y would be more likely to make it public, while those voting Y>X would be strongly inclined to keep it private -- therefore creating material for assumptions, which can certainly lead to intimidation.

Bests,

--
Tiago

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:57 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> wrote:

votes being public brings a few extra bits of transparency

More than that, public votes are a measure of mutual trust. Fans are
right to mourn their loss. Do we not live in polarized times?

Kind regards,
Felix Lechner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:55 PM Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> wrote:

Regarding the 'public as an option' ballot: it's not hard to imagine a(nother)
controversial GR where people voting X>Y would be more likely to make it public, while those voting Y>X would be strongly inclined to keep it private --
therefore creating material for assumptions, which can certainly lead to intimidation.

This is true only if we assume people always vote tactically. If I
had the option to do so, I would have seconded a position to make the
ballot secret for the RMS election, even though I voted the most
moderate option (4) ahead of the others. Similarly, people can second
options that they would like to see on the ballot, even if they
themselves would vote "none of the above" higher.

I agree that it's /more likely/ for someone who is voting for the
controversial option to want to keep their vote secret, but I believe
that most people involved with the RMS GR /recognized/ it as a
controversial issue that people would have strong feelings about. I
would hope many of those on all sides of the issue would have been
willing to lean in so that people could express their opinions on such
a divisive topic in a more private way.

Sincerely,
--
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
~hlieberman

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

+ <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot option
+ which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>

I think, 4K puts the bar very high (that would require 20 people).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEeh+1J5uI1UvU9CMA9TaqcBEdVxYFAmIgeFMACgkQ9TaqcBEd VxYqXg/8DXzvBooTaznGDA/f1tBBxaN4hZAn8ueUDOTgh4vO0QPfJrbMwB/doorq 5dbdSPhhVfg0cDNwXLsoBmxbJ0f1x5fsqoiv0UiG90sjh6tKw+sYiPI5jpzIZ4QT PISAlfgLCurDutmqR4ESanAd30eiXz578y1ST0LAul6fhn3BBNFleXApw2z+Ezy7 X90DA885KE9VYvJr4iaUtT+udkAO8GjonTIt9agIqcJ2FiaVCMw+jOqpClto3tdr 9rESteHwBGJTdBNVT/KGX4SrheUCWzD9th8YrgLPkY38705EYOHm4j9v+Nv13a3w TNMo7uxpBp74Fz6T1yNWuVpddKBLvUOXnaHPyDfRntNP3n2jiVv0PCM+dsWzanH2 G/C0kwUHnggdRJrKbsf+cThtZOp50wigUNTovYzwqzvn5mRToh05yxpl95fPPutZ uFK0K39qAMTqDxOURS0mOKOu+mbMpZkAmfnPx4R1BXRSMr6wlxLO7YAzi5zUiYvn FxQob0I4aBpsRSW/oT7vL5YTk4anklWwpZ1dKjUO7VdklEdwZ2mNrDCuejOUVr4/ 9WG8VbDhxifNkqmkIglLo6MsKL2/nrDoZ1U9yOn2hrYPwUex2G4DhqxToJqn1NXh GbuMidhnxb9UBYYKsdMENhZ3yW1HZq/vGQj/D7c0Bxe/iPH5g20=
=Laaj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 09:54:40PM -0500, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:46:16PM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
[...]

I have argued against this notion that private votes in some way contradicts our principles of transparency�, but that got no replies whatsoever.

� https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/Yg+tfywh09xmPZFM@debian.org

I think that is a reasonable concern, but I'm not sure how exactly we
are losing transparency here. Let's see; if we were to decide that all votes are public, then:

s/public/private?

Yes, my mistake.

[...]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEst7mYDbECCn80PEM/A2xu81GC94FAmIgpAEACgkQ/A2xu81G C94slA//ddBJq2Zl8UgejFP5HCUc29K2NoF8RzEjAxVVxoAWjqCEHwRKXovOuMM/ V4qHeBqTIF4Eo470cS7F1tnCQGyYbVTzEAu15NiL/eJCToA/tFCRpkeo7bSMJHJp UtisNrJz9Qhc356UXl5gv7hvQSyKsaOI6G/6lQ6Wl78GUoXFG3AjQdYEO6GrtvE3 HGaLaK8HgcRMVL+C61F2InZHEZxnRipuUfvTrAo69yP8iog9N5vG81SeR3ry4R3j OMyqwmQQvg28Ab3pDVnwkk78KhXBPlOItmhm3ItuZR/wSyMhaJdaC2jB8IOCq1PX LmIz4Jalmwfu4BjpbeoKaCEabQ+LZRvkmj1lQuYlQ4nDpGeM+eQBXg4iEPs4UfN9 vKOrLKHYowCbjMOANhxQwxP3B4/3QAes0hT+4haQwDJ8EQwp8geMyVLtOHq8h5yI hKd38f25O4BPoAPb9kqR3tsG6J0jYbbU+qUIZJlcf22vtZYykCC+kVZJoCvolpYe 0He03NcRssCtTAjOOawavV7UebcYcuhh5tmNRPoFGOzBdzNxxnEPkxE7xjwzU1ep kV0lKQa2EbSYcsMFSfORDTQt5CYNTk+5YBsD7C0gVPh9Qx8lELHp1+WTDarOuhiz uGNcra/Wf5M8H4yFbXHtWs/lq8rzfaOTmk9MTW83jBeRODDFEF4=
=IkYh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 true as well - if the bar is too low, then it might be indistinguishable from having all votes be secret.

Is 4K too high? Or is it high but still OK? Would K or 2K be more appropriate? Or would those be too low? I honestly don't know.

If the goal is to default to openness, but still allow secret votes
for sensitive topics, how do we choose the threshold that is best suited
to that?

Best regards,
Bill

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00016.html

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 11:13:03PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello everyone,

I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:

Rationale
========
While I agree that there are some votes which, due to their nature,
may be so controversial that the potential for a person's votes to be publicly revealed may cause them to change their vote (or opt out of
the election), even among divisive GRs, few rise to that level of controversy: the RMS GR and the systemd GR being two recent examples
which have provoked ire.

There is something which fundamentally distinguishes the kind of
voting that Debian does from that of a private institution or group,
where minutes and votes are typically kept out of public view: Debian
serves a larger community than the members of the institution. In
that sense, we are more similar to a public body than a private
membership.

Our Social Contract makes this distinction clear: when it says that we
will not hide problems, it immediately emphasizes that the bug
database will be open for public view at all times. Taking the step
to make a particular vote secret should require us to stop and
carefully weigh the costs to the larger community.

I hope this option better strikes the balance between the aspirations
of public visibility and the occasional, pragmatic need for secrecy.

Ballot Option
==========
The changes are available at: https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/82729d07aba7dd7ac641f7e4a87178f34b23efca

A diff follows (the word diff is very confusing, so I've omitted it):

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml index 41cb9dfbd80..7924992d3a7 100644
- --- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -226,12 +226,15 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>

<li>
<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. The voting
- - period is 2 weeks, but may be varied by up to 1 week by the
- - Project Leader.
+ Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting period.
+ After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast, unless
+ either one of the following is true:
</p>
+ <ol>
+ <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in &sect;5.2.</p></li>
+ <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot option + which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
+ </ol>
</li>

<li>

- --
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
~hlieberman
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEELyAgabIlUqb16FUfGikbTg3OS1cFAmIe7pJfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDJG MjAyMDY5QjIyNTUyQTZGNUU4NTUxRjFBMjkxQjRFMERDRTRCNTcACgkQGikbTg3O S1d5zQ/9F9rMHgeOnEyXWkZ1gIAabwjzY5IedPkoEGECaGz9uiYA446J/Q+jH5V6 blDNcTmy3VL8YxrPJ1NKhwYpF7SCL0QxUnCXiFtp5UFYzCiDWqWGHM4UbqPMZxox 8Z3/oDu7W5N8aa9GHSsL0f6aHtxBHxIS/CnA+wtOIGuGEpHQRxGhqQ0P17pbPkDn bOMbPC9x2Sve2bwzZ4hlvCySRGVorwKNWsvjZ7LWCc5k6a1ZLBYFQK065J6l17NN 6+rEBZ8yJ6UHnQ9wH1Y7loM8B4Z35qgf6MwXyeqMYHSRSrmfAc2uIp/EL4FStig2 4wWiNEyN6QuWkR75Tr3ZSNC+2NF3ptRmM+gc2nBWhz6Zx+yVm5JmvRHkGQfsTrRD 0NtVTflHIOHGsFHYj16IHmC1Xvu/9OHvf4bQumahIG88Rz58Zgsi965FaDTRn5di FtAxKoxsqzvKAe0OJkUHOnSVnv3w95UNg0uco5tgbUmDYISlFYNTHav0gL1EQBR2 GeNYNlJP6zlFEu6uxZuXlfv3BLNvQ4Yc2miE9Rv14bKEd1QizPVUGpX5YR8a89Ph QF2tSdy62MFqRrV9VKmheEnNb2uNsttFJci6ZBjci32zP6mMMFEgUuvgfl2CaMbG MUBi7dtjYkoL3IQuj+OsF5VKZLq2ERJhIDf8mogzetUWNT8aQVo=
=5e/l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
GPG: 5CDD 0C9C F446 BC1B 2509 8791 1762 E022 7034 CF84

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAABCAB9FiEEJXjSPd76bZ5rVv2gNeEe5JHS9UwFAmIiTtxfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDI1 NzhEMjNEREVGQTZEOUU2QjU2RkRBMDM1RTExRUU0OTFEMkY1NEMACgkQNeEe5JHS 9UwhyhAA2bz9++v9pbKPEACaAiP+Fq7qiWfqT6lLlE25uSc+Aci1Z8bguDwUDe6k 0SqKiUtuWEGcKA7vyvEIIQiO3lHJzj3AgZ2ZTxmWQwftFtYXZLjmhmFPOWJUTtCe qXsG5JyjjHw/QyKGJlTTMe6PNPeL+5ivYjkWXjplRU6CzFn7PXScFLsVVaGx8hun FWhPgZtp1/mbwyotm8VCljU3ltn45CIfyxdYUoFmWmUicLhwOSmS4VSTbjAERwXd kXDZ6kSNHfIY4GgdP1ZND2bheAZLVfRuDEdcSz8io25iE8Dk7Aif49Vp3mQKZlcT Y2ZsqGXEyMQvuPhwwF9GtAQXoL7/ps5Q6vYI3J+aICXpZ5OwgbP21A73tYS5tMg1 6zFuUfm62u21ZhDXmWb+VaeA+yYbIIBh6Kf+KxOCpB2n0BwAZ8QQs/PHU1EKTFsj plpCBeqVq2RSKZDEc/DVzHOYdkRbHga895xq4Y4iLLpEM5tRs3J913FbwuuHuhA4 pA1MUWTJH+Flc1RJDzp2in2gRg9U/vQUOaIGfSacfvew7LbE9Cx5ogZKKv0XXMQk IWP4uOU460Bg4Znx22iESjC38iByhAl2ydtNccGag6MwSiKZrbfqHw2vOPe5aRtq KbLGFv6qHwNbfawRMzoJ/fF9Fc+LsZ0LnKMxMC9kPR7JXNeIlKc=
=Fbbh
-----END

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 3:12 AM Judit Foglszinger <urbec@riseup.net> 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 <bblough@debian.org> wrote:

However, to generate further discussion, I do agree with Judit [1] that
4K seems like a high bar.

Hi Judit, Bill,

I agree, 4K is high. I struggled with this a bit before I proposed
it, and I'm still not 100% sure it's the right balance, but this is
some of my thought process:

Unlike "regular" ballot options, a ballot option containing a vote for
secrecy is a final decision once it reaches the threshold. It does
/not/ require voting to have an effect; rather, the mere existence of
a ballot option requesting secret ballots with 4K seconds will fix the
election to be a secret ballot, regardless of the outcome of the final
vote. Even if zero people voted it above NOTA, it still would turn
the election into a secret ballot.

In this way, it feels to me like it should have a higher bar than what
is regularly required to propose a ballot option (K). Looking at the constitution, there are two other thresholds dictated about voting:
enough to put a decision on hold (2K = 10), or the quorum required for
a vote to be valid (3Q, approximately 48 people at the time of this
writing).

Because the constitution clearly wants to maintain a minimum threshold
for discussion of ballot options (i.e., setting K as the floor of Q or
5), I didn't want to use Q as a basis for this threshold. It seemed
wrong to set it to 2K, though, considering that 2K developers merely
puts a decision on hold -- the final vote is what determines the
actual outcome. Because this ballot option is itself a mini-vote
inside a vote (as it has an independent effect regardless of the vote
outcome), I decided it should be higher than 2K.

Why 4 and not 3? I don't have a great logic for it. I looked at
recent votes and counted the number of overall seconds between all
proposals, and set it based on that number to be high enough so I
thought it was realistically achievable, though a high bar.

In practice, the way that I would like to see this work is that a
ballot option is proposed with no content other than turning the
ballot to a secret option. Then people can, regardless of their
position on the issue, second that ballot option to avoid splitting
the vote. This would have been easily achievable on the RMS GR (n=47
unique seconds + proposers) and on the systemd GR (n=42 unique seconds
+ proposers), but not on the less controversial declassify debian
private vote (n=18 unique seconds + proposers).

I still hope that this option receives enough seconds to go on the
ballot as an intermediary position between the current options of
"always secret" and "never secret except for DPL elections".

Sincerely,
--
Harlan Lieberman-Berg
~hlieberman

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/4/22 18:28, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:

In practice, the way that I would like to see this work is that a
ballot option is proposed with no content other than turning the
ballot to a secret option. Then people can, regardless of their
position on the issue, second that ballot option to avoid splitting
the vote.

If that's your intended application, why not just make that the explicit process, rather than requiring it be part of a ballot option?

I suppose one reason might be so you don't have to duplicate a lot of procedural elements, by piggybacking on the rules for ballot options.

Also, your change duplicates the idea that leadership elections are
secret. That is, you add it as one of the ORed conditions, while not
removing it (as Sam's option does) in the later text.


Here is an alternative idea on how to implement this:

Add as 4.2.5 and renumber the existing 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and 4.2.7, "If,
during the discussion period, at least 4K Developers call for a secret
ballot, then the votes are kept secret, even after the voting is finished."

If it is your intention that making the ballot secret extends the
discussion time (as adding a ballot option would), then also:
Amend A.1.4. to read, "The addition of a ballot option, the change via
an amendment of a ballot option, or a successful call for a secret
ballot changes the end of the discussion period..."

--
Richard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Copy: rlaager@wiktel.com (Richard Laager)
Copy: taowa@debian.org (Taowa)
Copy: gwolf@gwolf.org (Gunnar Wolf)
Copy: bblough@debian.org (Bill Blough)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------zTHAkEtT5gbhOt6wxRgxVtqr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

T24gU2F0LCBNYXIgNSwgMjAyMiBhdCAzOjQxIFBNIFJpY2hhcmQgTGFhZ2VyIDxybGFhZ2Vy QHdpa3RlbC5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBJZiB0aGF0J3MgeW91ciBpbnRlbmRlZCBhcHBsaWNh dGlvbiwgd2h5IG5vdCBqdXN0IG1ha2UgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj4gZXhwbGljaXQgcHJvY2Vzcywg cmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gcmVxdWlyaW5nIGl0IGJlIHBhcnQgb2YgYSBiYWxsb3QNCj4gb3B0aW9u Pw0KPiANCj4gSSBzdXBwb3NlIG9uZSByZWFzb24gbWlnaHQgYmUgc28geW91IGRvbid0IGhh dmUgdG8gZHVwbGljYXRlIGEgbG90DQo+IG9mIHByb2NlZHVyYWwgZWxlbWVudHMsIGJ5IHBp Z2d5YmFja2luZyBvbiB0aGUgcnVsZXMgZm9yIGJhbGxvdA0KPiBvcHRpb25zLg0KDQpUaGF0 J3MgdGhlIHByaW1hcnkgcmVhc29uLCB5ZXMuDQoNCj4gQWxzbywgeW91ciBjaGFuZ2UgZHVw bGljYXRlcyB0aGUgaWRlYSB0aGF0IGxlYWRlcnNoaXAgZWxlY3Rpb25zIGFyZSANCj4gc2Vj cmV0LiBUaGF0IGlzLCB5b3UgYWRkIGl0IGFzIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgT1JlZCBjb25kaXRpb25z LCB3aGlsZSBub3QgDQo+IHJlbW92aW5nIGl0IChhcyBTYW0ncyBvcHRpb24gZG9lcykgaW4g dGhlIGxhdGVyIHRleHQuDQoNCkkgZGlkIHRoaXMgbWVyZWx5IHRvIHByZXNlcnZlIHRoZSBj dXJyZW50IGJlaGF2aW9yIGluIGhvcGVzIG9mIHJlZHVjaW5nDQp0aGUgY29udHJvdmVyc3kg YXJvdW5kIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2UuICA1LjIuNSBhbHJlYWR5IHJlcXVpcmVzIHRoZSBEUEwNCmVs ZWN0aW9uIHRvIGJlIGtlcHQgc2VjcmV0OyBJIGV4cGxpY2l0bHkgbmFtZWQgaXQgaGVyZSB0 byBwcmV2ZW50DQpjb25mdXNpb24gZnJvbSB0d28gcGFydHMgb2YgdGhlIGNvbnN0aXR1dGlv biBwb3RlbnRpYWxseSBjb25mbGljdGluZw0Kd2l0aCBlYWNoIG90aGVyLCBidXQgSSBhZ3Jl ZSwgdGhhdCBpc24ndCBuZWNlc3NhcnkuDQoNCj4gSGVyZSBpcyBhbiBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZSBp ZGVhIG9uIGhvdyB0byBpbXBsZW1lbnQgdGhpczoNCj4gDQo+IEFkZCBhcyA0LjIuNSBhbmQg cmVudW1iZXIgdGhlIGV4aXN0aW5nIDQuMi41LCA0LjIuNiwgYW5kIDQuMi43LCAiSWYsIA0K PiBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gcGVyaW9kLCBhdCBsZWFzdCA0SyBEZXZlbG9wZXJz IGNhbGwgZm9yIGENCj4gc2VjcmV0IGJhbGxvdCwgdGhlbiB0aGUgdm90ZXMgYXJlIGtlcHQg c2VjcmV0LCBldmVuIGFmdGVyIHRoZSB2b3RpbmcNCj4gaXMgZmluaXNoZWQuIg0KPiANCj4g SWYgaXQgaXMgeW91ciBpbnRlbnRpb24gdGhhdCBtYWtpbmcgdGhlIGJhbGxvdCBzZWNyZXQg ZXh0ZW5kcyB0aGUgDQo+IGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdGltZSAoYXMgYWRkaW5nIGEgYmFsbG90IG9w dGlvbiB3b3VsZCksIHRoZW4gYWxzbzogQW1lbmQNCj4gQS4xLjQuIHRvIHJlYWQsICJUaGUg YWRkaXRpb24gb2YgYSBiYWxsb3Qgb3B0aW9uLCB0aGUgY2hhbmdlIHZpYSBhbg0KPiBhbWVu ZG1lbnQgb2YgYSBiYWxsb3Qgb3B0aW9uLCBvciBhIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWwgY2FsbCBmb3IgYSBz ZWNyZXQgDQo+IGJhbGxvdCBjaGFuZ2VzIHRoZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gcGVy aW9kLi4uIg0KDQpJIHRoaW5rIHRoYXQncyBhIG1vcmUgZWxlZ2FudCBzb2x1dGlvbi4gIEFk YXB0ZWQgaW50byANCmh0dHBzOi8vc2Fsc2EuZGViaWFuLm9yZy9obGllYmVybWFuL3dlYndt bC8tL2NvbW1pdC83YzRkODk1MjhhNTAzNDViMGJkMGU2N2Q5ZDM2NDk5NDEzZDlkNmMxLg0K DQpJIGhlcmVieSBhbWVuZCB0aGlzIHByb3Bvc2FsLCB1bmxlc3MgYW55IG9mIHRoZSBzZWNv bmRpbmcgRGV2ZWxvcGVycw0KKENDZWQpIG9iamVjdHMuICBUaGUgZGlmZiBmb2xsb3dzOg0K DQpjb21taXQgN2M0ZDg5NTI4YTUwMzQ1YjBiZDBlNjdkOWQzNjQ5OTQxM2Q5ZDZjMQ0KQXV0 aG9yOiBIYXJsYW4gTGllYmVybWFuLUJlcmcgPGhsaWViZXJtYW5Ac2V0ZWMuaW8+DQpEYXRl OiAgIFNhdCBNYXIgNSAxNjowMToyNiAyMDIyIC0wNTAwDQoNCiAgICAgQ2hhbmdlIGxhbmd1 YWdlIGFzIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBieSBybGFhZ2VyDQoNCmRpZmYgLS1naXQgYS9lbmdsaXNoL2Rl dmVsL2NvbnN0aXR1dGlvbi53bWwgYi9lbmdsaXNoL2RldmVsL2NvbnN0aXR1dGlvbi53bWwN CmluZGV4IDc5MjQ5OTJkM2E3Li40ODMwYzk3MmRmOSAxMDA2NDQNCi0tLSBhL2VuZ2xpc2gv ZGV2ZWwvY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uLndtbA0KKysrIGIvZW5nbGlzaC9kZXZlbC9jb25zdGl0dXRp b24ud21sDQpAQCAtMjI1LDE2ICsyMjUsMTAgQEAgZWFybGllciBjYW4gb3ZlcnJ1bGUgZXZl cnlvbmUgbGlzdGVkIGxhdGVyLjwvY2l0ZT48L3A+DQogICAgPC9saT4NCiAgICAgPGxpPg0K LSAgICA8cD4NCi0gICAgICAgVm90ZXMsIHRhbGxpZXMsIGFuZCByZXN1bHRzIGFyZSBub3Qg cmV2ZWFsZWQgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSB2b3RpbmcNCnBlcmlvZC4NCi0gICAgICAgQWZ0ZXIgdGhl IHZvdGUsIHRoZSBQcm9qZWN0IFNlY3JldGFyeSBsaXN0cyBhbGwgdGhlIHZvdGVzIGNhc3Qs DQp1bmxlc3MNCi0gICAgICAgZWl0aGVyIG9uZSBvZiB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGlzIHRydWU6 DQotICAgIDwvcD4NCi0gICAgPG9sPg0KLSAgICAgICA8bGk+PHA+VGhlIHZvdGUgaXMgZm9y IGEgbGVhZGVyc2hpcCBlbGVjdGlvbiBhcyBkZWZpbmVkIGluDQomc2VjdDs1LjIuPC9wPjwv bGk+DQotICAgICAgIDxsaT48cD5BdCBsZWFzdCA0SyBEZXZlbG9wZXJzIGhhdmUgc3BvbnNv cmVkIGFueSBzaW5nbGUgYmFsbG90DQpvcHRpb24NCi0gICAgICAgd2hpY2ggc2F5cyB0aGUg dm90ZXMgd2lsbCBiZSBrZXB0IHNlY3JldC48L3A+PC9saT4NCi0gICAgPC9vbD4NCisgICAg PHA+Vm90ZXMsIHRhbGxpZXMsIGFuZCByZXN1bHRzIGFyZSBub3QgcmV2ZWFsZWQgZHVyaW5n IHRoZSB2b3RpbmcNCnBlcmlvZC4NCisgICAgSWYsIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBw ZXJpb2QsIGF0IGxlYXN0IDRLIERldmVsb3BlcnMgY2FsbCBmb3IgYQ0Kc2VjcmV0DQorICAg IGJhbGxvdCwgdGhlbiB0aGUgdm90ZXMgYXJlIGtlcHQgc2VjcmV0LiBPdGhlcndpc2UsIGFm dGVyIHRoZSB2b3RlLCB0aGUNCisgICAgUHJvamVjdCBTZWNyZXRhcnkgbGlzdHMgYWxsIHRo ZSB2b3RlcyBjYXN0LjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2xpPg0KICAgICA8bGk+DQpAQCAtODU0LDEyICs4 NDgsMTIgQEAgcGxlYmlzY2l0ZXMsIHdoZXJlIHN0YXRlZCBhYm92ZS48L3A+DQogICAgcHJv cG9zZWQgZGlzYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB0aGF0IGNoYW5nZSB3aXRoaW4gMjQgaG91cnMuIElmIGFu eSBvZiB0aGVtIGRvDQogICAgZGlzYWdyZWUsIHRoZSBiYWxsb3Qgb3B0aW9uIGlzIGxlZnQg dW5jaGFuZ2VkLjwvbGk+DQogIC0gIDxsaT5UaGUgYWRkaXRpb24gb2YgYSBiYWxsb3Qgb3B0 aW9uIG9yIHRoZSBjaGFuZ2UgdmlhIGFuIGFtZW5kbWVudCBvZiBhDQotICBiYWxsb3Qgb3B0 aW9uIGNoYW5nZXMgdGhlIGVuZCBvZiB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBwZXJpb2QgdG8gYmUgb25l IHdlZWsNCi0gIGZyb20gd2hlbiB0aGF0IGFjdGlvbiB3YXMgZG9uZSwgdW5sZXNzIHRoYXQg d291bGQgbWFrZSB0aGUgdG90YWwNCi0gIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gcGVyaW9kIHNob3J0ZXIgdGhh biB0aGUgbWluaW11bSBkaXNjdXNzaW9uIHBlcmlvZCBvciBsb25nZXINCi0gIHRoYW4gdGhl IG1heGltdW0gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBwZXJpb2QuIEluIHRoZSBsYXR0ZXIgY2FzZSwgdGhlIGxl bmd0aCBvZg0KLSAgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gcGVyaW9kIGlzIGluc3RlYWQgc2V0IHRvIHRo ZSBtYXhpbXVtIGRpc2N1c3Npb24NCisgIDxsaT5UaGUgYWRkaXRpb24gb2YgYSBiYWxsb3Qg b3B0aW9uLCB0aGUgY2hhbmdlIHZpYSBhbiBhbWVuZG1lbnQgb2YgYQ0KYmFsbG90DQorICBv cHRpb24sIG9yIGEgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCBjYWxsIGZvciBhIHNlY3JldCBiYWxsb3QgY2hhbmdl cyB0aGUgZW5kIG9mIHRoZQ0KKyAgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBwZXJpb2QgdG8gYmUgb25lIHdlZWsg ZnJvbSB3aGVuIHRoYXQgYWN0aW9uIHdhcyBkb25lLA0KdW5sZXNzIHRoYXQNCisgIHdvdWxk IG1ha2UgdGhlIHRvdGFsIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gcGVyaW9kIHNob3J0ZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgbWlu aW11bQ0KZGlzY3Vzc2lvbg0KKyAgcGVyaW9kIG9yIGxvbmdlciB0aGFuIHRoZSBtYXhpbXVt IGRpc2N1c3Npb24gcGVyaW9kLiBJbiB0aGUgbGF0dGVyDQpjYXNlLCB0aGUNCisgIGxlbmd0 aCBvZiB0aGUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBwZXJpb2QgaXMgaW5zdGVhZCBzZXQgdG8gdGhlIG1heGlt dW0gZGlzY3Vzc2lvbg0KICAgIHBlcmlvZC48L2xpPg0KICAgICA8bGk+VGhlIHByb3Bvc2Vy IG9mIGEgYmFsbG90IG9wdGlvbiBtYXkgbWFrZSBtaW5vciBjaGFuZ2VzIHRvIHRoYXQNCg0K DQpTaW5jZXJlbHksDQotLSANCkhhcmxhbiBMaWViZXJtYW4tQmVyZw0KfmhsaWViZXJtYW4N
Cg==

--------------zTHAkEtT5gbhOt6wxRgxVtqr--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEELyAgabIlUqb16FUfGikbTg3OS1cFAmIj0o1fFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDJG MjAyMDY5QjIyNTUyQTZGNUU4NTUxRjFBMjkxQjRFMERDRTRCNTcACgkQGikbTg3O S1dpzw/9FjXgcnuX1LSuEd7gb3NO3QeQB6NF/r7kEvTBNa7jeOjmRz30b0fSJmTb 78R6CNPsPGIN+LHHTDW2lv/5jrM4IAH5KS8mwwitDR2hY6ZlAXs+rfWSqzDzImqF JjSlXtwBG1a8ORS64g3I/fW19I39zfE+PjWzZQvC9TErLDsz/ztx6PnUO96iylEN sVkUkeGpaWfyCTie0kKL3ISTlWaN8phmqkKyj86ClkLZxj4wEYmtr/fTHolnxOK4 1HcWI55oFl0Wmq8vLIJZJVQ3+yjfvfNqC0TOicdHi531YPYozi02OrGI603CzHHp UAzGMyFMurxHoNcQ202lY58zFUmlff3Bii9BmX6W1dFGZDlL19lAgxmcqVQd/+UD /GK6lm3Y/G5J9yrzIfw1enHWvp8Pqjjar1UENYJyIT1z6z9wg5rprtvb0CdnBBCR hRGkTOGSWDG05Je3zfod+6DijBfW9lDORcG1XTsGbyWNKkNIGBpgrr6OOt+PSOpH Caiy01FrTb/Qnh3dtGJCKh9Zp5D/zSkCLbJebVw4mIVnk4kWNgAUk7S6+Q2LmImY 5R+tgWet9QtVLp6dm075VZsvlYI+JoJ7BSmKiyTiDUlk/PPI46WvVxX4ptztPXzy WcWP/mUEZnGiCP1YRnr0NLftrKKYc17Tn/jgoEoR0JCP8HQfz3s=
=bxs+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Harlan Lieberman-Berg dijo [Sat, Mar 05, 2022 at 04:13:48PM -0500]:

(...)

If it is your intention that making the ballot secret extends the discussion time (as adding a ballot option would), then also: Amend
A.1.4. to read, "The addition of a ballot option, the change via an amendment of a ballot option, or a successful call for a secret ballot changes the end of the discussion period..."

I think that's a more elegant solution. Adapted into https://salsa.debian.org/hlieberman/webwml/-/commit/7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1.

I agree that your rewording does not seem to change anything
substantive and reads easier. This modified proposal is completely OK,
and I continue to endorse it.

I hereby amend this proposal, unless any of the seconding Developers
(CCed) objects. The diff follows:

commit 7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1
Author: Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io>
Date: Sat Mar 5 16:01:26 2022 -0500

Change language as suggested by rlaager

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml index 7924992d3a7..4830c972df9 100644
--- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -225,16 +225,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>
</li>
<li>
- <p>
- Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting period.
- After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast, unless
- either one of the following is true:
- </p>
- <ol>
- <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in &sect;5.2.</p></li>
- <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot
option
- which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
- </ol>
+ <p>Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting period.
+ If, during the discussion period, at least 4K Developers call for a secret
+ ballot, then the votes are kept secret. Otherwise, after the vote, the
+ Project Secretary lists all the votes cast.</p>
</li>
<li>
@@ -854,12 +848,12 @@ plebiscites, where stated above.</p>
proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If any of them do
disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.</li>
- <li>The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
- ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one week
- from when that action was done, unless that would make the total
- discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period or longer
- than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case, the length of
- the discussion period is instead set to the maximum discussion
+ <li>The addition of a ballot option, the change via an amendment of a ballot
+ option, or a successful call for a secret ballot changes the end of the
+ discussion period to be one week from when that action was done,
unless that
+ would make the total discussion period shorter than the minimum
discussion
+ period or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter
case, the
+ length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum discussion
period.</li>
<li>The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that

Sincerely,

--


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRgswk9lhCOXLlxQu/i9jtDU/RZiQUCYiTlugAKCRDi9jtDU/RZ iQnJAP4/54wg+qnD+bM396HkWj7okT6HHrRgTEqnbGRnXlTFOAD/U59QSWZtfJca +9kYwkt6e4NQxdZny4ZJ4H56KYQIKQ0=
=OLb9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

* Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io> [2022-03-05 16:13]:

I hereby amend this proposal, unless any of the seconding Developers
(CCed) objects. The diff follows:

commit 7c4d89528a50345b0bd0e67d9d36499413d9d6c1
Author: Harlan Lieberman-Berg <hlieberman@setec.io>
Date: Sat Mar 5 16:01:26 2022 -0500

Change language as suggested by rlaager

diff --git a/english/devel/constitution.wml b/english/devel/constitution.wml >index 7924992d3a7..4830c972df9 100644
--- a/english/devel/constitution.wml
+++ b/english/devel/constitution.wml
@@ -225,16 +225,10 @@ earlier can overrule everyone listed later.</cite></p>
</li>
<li>
- <p>
- Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting >period.
- After the vote, the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast, >unless
- either one of the following is true:
- </p>
- <ol>
- <li><p>The vote is for a leadership election as defined in >&sect;5.2.</p></li>
- <li><p>At least 4K Developers have sponsored any single ballot
option
- which says the votes will be kept secret.</p></li>
- </ol>
+ <p>Votes, tallies, and results are not revealed during the voting >period.
+ If, during the discussion period, at least 4K Developers call for a >secret
+ ballot, then the votes are kept secret. Otherwise, after the vote, the
+ Project Secretary lists all the votes cast.</p>
</li>
<li>
@@ -854,12 +848,12 @@ plebiscites, where stated above.</p>
proposed disagree with that change within 24 hours. If any of them do
disagree, the ballot option is left unchanged.</li>
- <li>The addition of a ballot option or the change via an amendment of a
- ballot option changes the end of the discussion period to be one week
- from when that action was done, unless that would make the total
- discussion period shorter than the minimum discussion period or longer
- than the maximum discussion period. In the latter case, the length of
- the discussion period is instead set to the maximum discussion
+ <li>The addition of a ballot option, the change via an amendment of a >ballot
+ option, or a successful call for a secret ballot changes the end of the
+ discussion period to be one week from when that action was done,
unless that
+ would make the total discussion period shorter than the minimum
discussion
+ period or longer than the maximum discussion period. In the latter
case, the
+ length of the discussion period is instead set to the maximum discussion
period.</li>
<li>The proposer of a ballot option may make minor changes to that

I sponsor this ballot option in its amended form.


Cheers
Timo


--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGzBAABCgAdFiEEJvtDgpxjkjCIVtam+C8H+466LVkFAmIk9/wACgkQ+C8H+466 LVlbNAwAyQUNXZwPs0FIBpUZVquf/FpiNvkDmq9IwCTumTj1wg6JUGE0cqSbocHA y0bOKqb8rw4FOQK7+2xXIhRBEziaDwkzToucS0cuyQ60b9u5pI7xzqDAJAEGrgUc Xof0zMvd6+alCpfRG5/gKLJfgegd1rdyXR9vAagngdk7CIEkG1U5i2cunR3DgqZO oQWAkf0eC9Gf0uOEj4jSzxE4ORblFXpUQvvRqv6umGUDjOi7h2/rCwuoGdsZqrDo 9YXRHjD8FbJbrZhUHmXmBZBmjr2lDLYVVhUENvY/WcFw+lHMUSz5w2cbecg1Euor gmZ9GOf/okNZgVSmScKiMjq4KdFjjDErVN3Pc3i7fHm

Hi Harlan,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think your reasoning is sound and appreciate you elaborating on it.

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 07:28:57PM -0500, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:

I still hope that this option receives enough seconds to go on the
ballot as an intermediary position between the current options of
"always secret" and "never secret except for DPL elections".

I agree, and hope hope that the recent revision (that, by the way, I
don't object to) will garner some additional support.

Best regards,
Bill

--
GPG: 5CDD 0C9C F446 BC1B 2509 8791 1762 E022 7034 CF84

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKTBAABCAB9FiEEJXjSPd76bZ5rVv2gNeEe5JHS9UwFAmIk8JtfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDI1 NzhEMjNEREVGQTZEOUU2QjU2RkRBMDM1RTExRUU0OTFEMkY1NEMACgkQNeEe5JHS 9Uygfg//Uki3AJdezamVzeEiK/yB/A5yKubhbRczNB8Bhu+uoNPQujQJn5cquFW7 irdZ5qLbAq5i89l2M5/zeeOG0tOlndlmpxVYme5/UoFao/Ag72NKQRrAIPFSGEoM lt+wsw1wroVpfunrvHdx+3zGpk7hcwz0dMU46OizrypLEMqTLFmUYI9rxTS4UxaA AtcIwl9w/MepQr4Qh8+otGihwGrmBrm4m4ZvR9JYwEScA3h3w6SUSEIN7YK0pFP8 /DUdXQqgab/FKIRfPUbHDCMkLA2g+Lq+vFtA23pZYZiW6qoLxXIizYAnbAzbP9hP LUBQ75mtHZyPzmfPv+lGxdS14L73pblN1MrkFc3xEd+cTJZA/31nBx/oeNkwm6kF 1qCcEEab4EpL3dhWzIbokTsU8Uk5BgPUgnYxM/o/fr46UhM6OPWe5o7YoFWaeucW LCDTqGJvISbIer4vh66V89uvf1llXYuAAxtlufZNAV52ci9MdqipmCHWIgHoaamh K8pS11OBEWXm2vnPM1oC+2gveDzGLM2y+aptkIehxUCuRkC7k9dB1G30kmoLjMVj 74UYJg2pg9rAZ+DMt4LHIrFhLo7zojzZppFkqxnbWgoR9mxDDNT3K762r0A5SsvR l1Ib4muRh33Y+h5agFNtLhjmSOxnJfHg0s4IXKZYBvuL2XQBIX0=
=Cbak
-----END