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 social contract are discouraged.
Rationale
=========
So far no voting scheme that preserve both the integrity of the vote and
the secret of the vote have been proposed. The scheme used for DPL
election does not provide plausible deniability.
2. is not made a hard requirement so that it need not be adjudicated by
the Debian secretary. However most of the developers that seconded the first ballot of GR 2021_002 were experienced developers that would be have been able to heed the recommendation given in this GR.
Dear developers,
I propose the following ballot option for the current GR:
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 social contract are discouraged.
Rationale
=========
So far no voting scheme that preserve both the integrity of the vote and
the secret of the vote have been proposed. The scheme used for DPL
election does not provide plausible deniability.
2. is not made a hard requirement so that it need not be adjudicated by
the Debian secretary. However most of the developers that seconded the first ballot of GR 2021_002 were experienced developers that would be have been able to heed the recommendation given in this GR.
Respectfully submitted,
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 social contract are discouraged.
Rationale
=========
So far no voting scheme that preserve both the integrity of the vote and the secret of the vote have been proposed. The scheme used for DPL
election does not provide plausible deniability.
2. is not made a hard requirement so that it need not be adjudicated by
the Debian secretary. However most of the developers that seconded the first
ballot of GR 2021_002 were experienced developers that would be have been able to heed the recommendation given in this GR.
seems I missed your ballot proposal when I suggested mine in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2022/03/msg00021.html
(Message-id: YiHtKyWt2LhDLGVV@layer-acht.org>), I'm sorry and I'm blaming information overload everywhere, which is why I'm behind in catching up on reading @-vote.
Anyway, how do we proceed here?
Anyway, how do we proceed here?We should merge them! Maybe you could suggest a new wording ?
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 anybody else) to look at what's missing compared to your proposal?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 300 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 52:41:07 |
Calls: | 6,712 |
Files: | 12,243 |
Messages: | 5,355,180 |