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: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process
  • Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:17:59 -0600

On Feb 11, Sergey A. Lipnevich [sergey AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> I think we're getting somewhere. Please see below.

No, we're not. I certainly haven't heard anything to make me think we
should do this differently, and your position still seems to be that we
don't need to do this because we shouldn't have anonymous votes, and if
other project people want anonymous votes for whatever reason, they should
just change.

> Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > If you can find a way to eliminate political peer-pressure in any human
> > environment, you would probably be a Nobel candidate. Pressure doesn't
> > have to be real to be perceived, and even when it is real the person
> > providing the pressure isn't necessarily aware of it (ie, malice isn't
> > necessary).
>
> I no longer argue with this, but my question is: is it really that bad
> that you want to conceal your opinion?

No, I don't think it is that bad that people want to have an anonymous
vote, assuming that's what you mean by "conceal your opinion". You
apparently do, so I'm not sure why this is now your question.

> I honestly want to know what kind of pressure would compel you to hide
> your vote.

I think we've been over that a few times.

> From these sources: http://lwn.net/Articles/105375/,
> http://www.producingoss.com/, the prevailing model for FOSS projects,
> especially younger ones according to Karl Fogel, is benevolent
> dictatorship.

I'll make this simple: I don't care what other projects do, because they
don't have our developers, and our developers have asked for something
else. Citing other projects in this instance isn't relevant (to me).

> So the truth is, when you came to participate, you should've expected
> these pressures, but now you want to escape from them somehow. Is this
> realistic?

Just because I cited one example of how someone might feel implicit
pressure doesn't mean this is about me. I wouldn't have a problem with
open voting myself, but that's up to the rest of the project, not me.
And it's really not the topic of this thread, especially given that none of
the people who wanted anonymous votes have stepped into this thread to say
"oh, my mind is now changed". In other words, no one but you has expressed
interest in changing this, so we need to continue with that part of the
policy and improve the other parts where multiple people *are* noting a
need for improvement.

> > particularly opposed to open voting myself, I can say that as a very new
> > developer I would have been hesitant to vote for any TL who wasn't the
> > incumbent, due to lack of real familiarity with the project. However, the
> > project guidelines required me to vote. Voting "abstain" is an option,
> > but
> > again, as a new developer if I had to vote openly I would definitely have
> > felt implicit pressure to vote for a candidate (and not abstain), even if
> > that vote was not informed, to assert that I was serious about being
> > involved in the project. Is that an entirely rational position to take?
> > Not really. But human nature isn't always rational.
>
> So how is this "political pressure?"

You apparently have a loaded definition of "political" or something.
Saying someone would feel pressured to change their vote a certain way
because of concerns about how they would be perceived is fairly textbook
political pressure.

> You feel new in the project, you don't know who's worthy of your vote,
> and who has what kind of agenda. It's perfectly fine in my opinion. In
> this case maybe we should think about not taking privileges away from
> people who don't vote, and that would give you a fair way out.

First, it was one example, it doesn't fit every reason someone might want
an anonymous vote, so it's not really worth it to make this the issue.
Second, whether or not the votes are required is also not the topic of this
thread. I understand wanting to look at the voting process as a whole when
discussing changes, but only if most people think the process as whole
needs change. That doesn't appear to be the case here. We have one aspect
that is at issue for several people (auditability), and we need to deal
with that in the rest of the framework we have. Otherwise we will sit
spinning our wheels forever, and this project does way too much of that
already.

> > The important things are:
> >
> > 1) people are comfortable enough to participate in the voting process
> > 2) we can provide reasonable assurance the results presented accurately
> > reflect the votes cast
> >
> >
> Well, can't we get there using an easier path? To achieve 1, let's not
> pressure people to vote. To achieve 2, let's disclose individual votes
> after the process is completed.

Both of those continue to just ignore how other people have said they feel.
You're just not listening to anything being said, and I'm done with this
subthread. If anyone else has objections to the auditing method proposed
(and is still reading this), please speak up. Otherwise I think Eric
should move this to a conclusion.

Attachment: pgpJsJDnpyUhb.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page