[aur-general] Trusted Users, Secret ballots, Openness?
allan at archlinux.org
Thu Dec 17 16:22:15 EST 2009
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
>> 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
Note that we used to vote in public until the AUR voting interface
became available. People still got rejected.
More information about the aur-general