Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sergey A. Lipnevich" <sergey AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process
  • Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:50:15 -0500

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.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page