[SM-Discuss] voting process

Sergey A. Lipnevich sergey at sourcemage.org
Thu Feb 9 16:50:15 EST 2006


Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> The point was raised on IRC that if this goes to a vote (as in, assuming
> Eric is nominated again and someone else is as well), Eric shouldn't be the
> one to receive and count the votes.  This prompted some other discussion
> about the voting process in general and concerns that have been raised at
> various times.  The problem some have with the current method is that there
> is no verifiability for the results.  We mail our votes to a person, who
> tells us what the totals are.  While we may all trust that person, this is
> not a trustworthy process.  The previous approach of mailing the votes to
> the open ML also has problems, since people may be intimidated or pressured
> into not voting what they really think.
>   
That's not a constructive feedback for what you're proposing, but I'd 
like to say this. I believe the open voting in majority of FOSS projects 
has shown very good results. Apache's model for example is so popular 
that even voting symbols (e.g., +1, +0, -0, -1) have been adopted widely 
(e.g., Debian voting requires that all votes are published after it's 
over, http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, p. 4.2). I'll have to 
get back to you with a proof of the "wide adoption" of open voting if 
necessary, but I believe it's a known fact as we're all subscribed to 
many developers mailing lists for the software we're interested in and 
can see what's going on there.

So, I think going to all this trouble with one-off codes is unnecessary.

Sergey.



More information about the SM-Discuss mailing list