5 ms·
Because public voting is the status quo, so 3 & 4 are identical in what they would (not) change in the procedures. 3 is just an additional statement of support.
by dtech 5y ago
Because public voting is the status quo, so 3 & 4 are identical in what they would (not) change in the procedures. 3 is just an additional statement of support. If you support public voting (3) you also support 4 over 1/2.
- gvx 5y agoNot necessarily. As I understand it, 4 (NOTA) is special, because in a vote to change the constitution of Debian, you need 3 times more votes for a change than NOTA votes. Thus 3 > 2 > 4 would mean "I prefer 3, but if the majority supports 2 I will side with them instead of against them". In this case, I can imagine people thinking "I personally think public voting is fine, but if a lot of people think we should have secret votes, I have no problem with changing the constitution to allow those."
- malthuswaswrong 5y agoPublic voting is not status quo outside of Debian. In the real world the only places that have public voting are places that are controlled by dictators.
- notriddle 5y agoAs well as many, many organizations that aren’t governments.
- Spooky23 5y agoIt’s very common for boards and other organizational entities to use public voting. I’d argue that it’s a feature of legislative processes. I do think ranked choice voting is dumb and adds low value and high complexity. This thread with hundreds of comments affirms that notion.
- toast0 5y agoMost (all?) US legislatures don't have private voting and are not controlled by dictators; not sure about other countries. Voice voting does happen in some contexts and doesn't leave a record of who voted how, but most contested votes are recorded. To me, Debian Developer feels more like a position of responsibility and representation than a member of the public. But I'm not one, and I don't know what the expectations are.