[aur-general] Trusted Users, Secret ballots, Openness?

[Allan McRae]

Loui Chang wrote:
> On Thu 17 Dec 2009 20:31 +0100, Xyne wrote:
>>> TU votes were never meant to be secret, it only came about as the
>>> implementation of the voting application. We don't live under a violent
>>> military coup or anything. You should be able to identify with your
>>> thoughts in a free society. The discussion period is there for people to
>>> voice any concerns, if that creates tension - so be it. I hope we aren't
>>> all wimps that can't take a little bit of conflict. I'd like to know
>>> that our Trusted Users are able to voice their opinions and uphold the
>>> Arch Way, etc.
>> That's a nice strawman argument which completely disregards social
>> psychology and the real reason for secret ballots, even if a TU vote
>> means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the universe. You're
>> also confusing the discussion period with post-electoral discussion,
>> which are two very different things. Invoking others to "uphold the Arch
>> Way" in this context is completely without meaning and seems to be
>> nothing more than a baseless emotional appeal that goes hand-in-hand
>> with the previous strawman argument. I'm actually surprised to see such
>> a crude statement.
> 
> I don't know what straw man you're referring to, but when it comes to TUs
> we are no longer regular users who should be hiding behind secret
> ballots. By merit and by votes we are representatives of the Trusted
> Users and of the community.
> 
> I was only referring to the discussion period. By all accounts there
> were no problems, so the proposal should have passed. If there were any
> outstanding issues they should have been raised. The people that voted
> 'NO' should not have been silent. The fact that there was no debate
> implies that people were afraid to voice their opinions, or were weary
> of the conversation.
> 
> In all honesty though, it's difficult for me to trust someone who cloaks
> their identity and hides their opinions. Perhaps you were offended
> because you cloak your identity. I didn't really consider that, I
> apologize. I mean no personal attack. This is just the way I feel.
> 
>> If you really feel that way, change the TU interface to make the voting
>> public and display each TU's vote next to his or her name.
> 
> I might look into that, at least for disclosing details for the Trusted
> Users.
> 
>> I'll end this here before I suppress the wimp in me and flesh out my
>> reply to Loui's post.
> 
> I would definitely be interested in an explanation of the social
> psychology.

Note that we used to vote in public until the AUR voting interface 
became available.  People still got rejected.

Allan