[SM-Discuss] voting process
lejatorn at smgl.homelinux.net
Sun Feb 12 05:58:06 EST 2006
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0800, Eric Sandall wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> > Mathieu L. wrote:
> >> Sergey, we do not contest your statement that open voting is widely
> >> used, oftenly works and is usually the most efficient solution. However,
> >> the point is some ppl would like some anonymity to participate, that's
> >> the bottom line.
> > It's seems to be only a matter of time for these people to also ask for
> > anonymous commits ;-). Is any FOSS project you know doing closed voting
> > on leadership? I am trying to remember, but there are actually very few
> > projects that elect their front people. I only know Debian, and they
> > disclose votes on completion. That's why I questioned the reasoning of
> > these people.
> It doesn't matter if you (or any of us) think their reasoning is
> sound, but that /they/ believe it. The whole point of anonymous voting
> is so you can cast your vote without fear of reprisal or
> discrimination based on who you voted for. As you may have noticed,
> most of us don't mind open voting, but as this is a community of
> volunteers we must work with the 'lowest' common denominator: some
> people wish to vote anonymously. Therefore, we vote anonymously. Some
> people have brought up the issue of verifying votes, so now we are
> trying to address that, and I think Jeremy has come up with a very
> good way to do so:
> 1. Send GPG signed vote to cote counter (usually the PL)
> 2. Vote counter sends bag a random hash to the voter
> 3. Vote results are sent to the list showing which hash voted for whom
> 4. If you voter sees that their hash doesn't match with their vote,
> they send in a complaint and the vote counter verifies they wrote
> out the results correctly. If not, he/she corrects it.
> 5. If a voter still feels their vote is misconstrued we, the
> community, can go through the GPG signed votes and make sure they were
> not tampered with and that their votes were assigned appropriately.
Since the question was "how to achieve auditability?" (and not "why
anonymous votes?" as Sergey thought) and Jeremy found this solution,
please let's do that and move on.
"Monde de merde."
More information about the SM-Discuss