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: Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>
  • To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process
  • Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:10:17 -0800 (PST)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
Eric Sandall wrote:
We're trying to keep a system that lets everyone vote without any fear
of coercion (in any form), which open voting does not allow. It's
great that other distros and communities use open voting, but they're
not us and we don't have to do what 'everyone else' is doing. We've

Sure we don't, but we better have a good reason. This thread is about
finding that reason, and I think nobody including you came up with one.
Saying "some people want that" is not an answer. People want many
things, and some of them may be wrong for the project. A specific
example of "intimidation" or "coercion" would go a long way, similarly
to a bug report going a long way toward fixing a problem, but all I hear
is that "it's possible." It's also possible that all the political stuff
is going to bog down SMGL to the point of irrelevance. Maybe we all have
to think carefully about doing things differently, and try doing them
the "old-fashioned" way that has been proven to work at least sometimes.

This thread is /only/ about how to implement auditing for anonymous
voting. Nothing else.

Eric, let me ask you, a project lead, to explain to me, a long time
contributor, and this list, how did mandatory anonymous voting make our
project better? What is it that we gained by instituting that? In
retrospect, do you think it was a good idea? Do you think more people
came to the project because they could vote anonymously, or some people
left before because they couldn't? And if you don't know, let's set up a
poll and ask everyone, because with so much politics, we might as well
do it right.

Sergey.

I already listed, in my prior mail, how it has helped (with an 'AFAIK'
disclaimer before it).

- From what I recall we setup anonymous votin because some gurus
requested it (I do not recall which gurus or if they're even with us).
The point, which you seem to be missing even though several of us have
pointed it out, is that this thread is about adding auditing to our
current voting process, that's it. Also note that anonymous voting is
'safer' and has, at least in the past, been requested by our
developers with no one (with one exception) asking for it to be
changed.

I think we've already done our 'poll' through this thread. We have
more than one for anonymous voting and one against.

I do not believe that we will be changing our voting from anonymous to
public unless we have more developers who feel we need this, and if
more do, please start a /new/ thread about that so we can finish this
one.

- -sandalle

- --
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us | http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD8PW8HXt9dKjv3WERAls6AJ9k1tw1LfeNMezV1/Pgcgwj9AHvYgCfZvFt
gbFL9zrwmiEHhU62mdJejU8=
=XnXv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page