[aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
xyne at archlinux.ca
Sun Mar 24 04:43:44 EDT 2013
Don deJuan wrote:
>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result.
>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>> made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives
the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my
reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No
David Benfell wrote:
>I don't know what voting mechanism is used. I was guessing--without
>looking--that trusted users were indicating their votes by email,
>hardly an anonymous process. If that's the case, then asking the
>reason for a particular vote may seem legitimate.
>If, however, the votes are anonymous, asking reasons can actually
>serve to compromise that anonymity, since voters may unwittingly or
>unwillingly compromise themselves with an open-ended response.
The voting process is anonymous via a dedicated AUR voting interface. We can
see who voted when the vote ends but not how. We can however see a running
tally throughout the voting period.
Yes, the discussion period does remove some anonymity from the vote, but there
should be some accountability. This isn't the same thing as voting for a
political party where the choice is often arbitrarily based on a myriad of
subjective personal values that sometimes defy logic. The vote should be focused
on an objective evaluation of the candidate and it should be possible to come to
some general consensus through discussion.
And as I said before, if there is an objection then I consider it an obligation
to state it because by not doing so others may remain unaware of a real issue
and unknowing vote for an inappropriate candidate.
I think I have said all that I have to say on this issue. I remain disappointed
by how this played out and I am not alone.
More information about the aur-general