1 |
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hi, everyone. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> As some of you have read, I have proposed a new privacy-oriented voting |
6 |
> frontend for Gentoo [1]. However, the whole idea was rendered pretty |
7 |
> much pointless by Trustees demanding information on who cast a vote. |
8 |
> This is currently used to determine 'interest in Foundation', |
9 |
> and therefore kick inactive Foundation members. To be honest, I think |
10 |
> it's misguided, for three reasons: |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
> 1. It intrudes on privacy of voters. I suppose it's not *that major* |
14 |
> but still I don't think it's appropriate to publish a 'shame list' of |
15 |
> people who haven't voted for whatever reason. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
I believe in your right to vote and have the content of the vote be |
19 |
private. I don't believe in your right to vote anonymously in Foundation |
20 |
elections. The fact that you voted should be public. The foundation has |
21 |
minimal requirements for membership; if you don't vote in foundation |
22 |
affairs (1 vote a year!) then I don't see the point in being a member. It's |
23 |
basically the only difference afforded to members[0]! I don't believe we do |
24 |
publish a list of who voted in every election, but we do publish a |
25 |
membership list and there is definitely a correlation and its intentional. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> 2. It introduces a big weakness in the system. My whole idea was to |
30 |
> make it practically impossible to sniff votes after the election is |
31 |
> prepared. With this solution, anyone with sufficient privileges |
32 |
> (election officials, infra) can trivially passively sniff votes. |
33 |
> |
34 |
|
35 |
We need to know who cast votes, we don't need to know the content of the |
36 |
votes. I assume building such a system is possible (maybe it isn't?) |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
> |
40 |
> 3. It is really meaningless. Casting a vote does not really indicate |
41 |
> any interest in GF. It only indicates that someone has done the minimal |
42 |
> effort to avoid being kicked. There is no reason to conflate the two. |
43 |
> |
44 |
|
45 |
I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I don't see very |
46 |
many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking people if they |
47 |
are interested[0]" |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
> |
51 |
> |
52 |
> I believe we should consider other options of determining activity. |
53 |
> Depending on whether we actually want to keep people actually interested |
54 |
> in GF, or just those caring enough to stay, I can think of a few |
55 |
> options. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> The most obvious solution would be to take AGM attendance as indication |
58 |
> of interest. It would also create an interest in actually attending, |
59 |
> and make it possible to finally reach a quorum. However, it's rather |
60 |
> a poor idea given that AGMs tend to happen in middle of the night for |
61 |
> European devs. We would probably have to accept excuses for not |
62 |
> attending, and then measuring attendance will probably be meaningless |
63 |
> anyway. |
64 |
> |
65 |
|
66 |
Attendance of a single meeting per year is a bad idea without some kind of |
67 |
proxy system in place, same as any corporation. |
68 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
> |
71 |
> Another option (which some people aren't going to like) is to require |
72 |
> all Foundation members to be Gentoo devs (but not the other way around), |
73 |
> and then terminate GF membership along with developer status. Given |
74 |
> that there's only a few non-dev members, and most of them are retired |
75 |
> devs whose membership simply didn't terminate by existing rules yet, I |
76 |
> think there shouldn't really be a problem in making the few interested |
77 |
> members non-commit devs by existing rules. |
78 |
> |
79 |
|
80 |
This doesn't really imply interested in the Foundation either though; |
81 |
because the developership and Foundation are separate. |
82 |
|
83 |
|
84 |
> |
85 |
> Finally, if we really don't care we could just send pings and terminate |
86 |
> membership of people that don't answer in time. This is pretty much |
87 |
> similar to the current idea with voting, except it doesn't pretend to be |
88 |
> meaningful. |
89 |
> |
90 |
|
91 |
The point of tracking who votes is that votes are nominally the only real |
92 |
difference between members and non-members; so in the end it's one of the |
93 |
few ways members can express their interest. If we had shares, then owning |
94 |
those would be an interest; or donations, or funding requests, or some |
95 |
other idea. |
96 |
|
97 |
-A |
98 |
|
99 |
[0] A plausible reality is that most members don't even have 'an interest' |
100 |
in Foundation affairs and if we increase the minimum requirement for |
101 |
membership we might see a precipitous drop in member count; we would need |
102 |
to debate whether or not this is a desired outcome or not. |
103 |
|
104 |
|
105 |
> |
106 |
> |
107 |
> WDYT? |
108 |
> |
109 |
> [1] |
110 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/6977bf6f9b72a17847fdc93afd4d9a9f |
111 |
> |
112 |
> -- |
113 |
> Best regards, |
114 |
> Michał Górny |
115 |
> |
116 |
> |