5 ms·

Stopped using Debian a long time ago, and this is just making me glad I did exactly that. What kind of hairbrained nimrod came up with that idea!? You can't h

by sjmm1989 5y ago

Stopped using Debian a long time ago, and this is just making me glad I did exactly that. What kind of hairbrained nimrod came up with that idea!? You can't have mixed voting methods and still call it fair in any respect. Any chance there could be tampering should be considered not just to be happening, but to be assured to happen. "Secret ballots" of any sort when everyone else is not partaking in said "Secret ballots" just creates a skew towards unfairness and improper results. Assuming those ballots truly are secret and not just pseudo-secret. If true secret, then there is no way to track properly for sure if there is tampering... I doubt anyone with Debian is going to be listening to me on this; but perhaps they should. Debian crew: No. Normal voting methods only dammit. Like they are going to listen though. In the meantime, I'll be using a different version of Linux. Debian has been dead to me for a long time now.

throwaway82652 5y ago
>Stopped using Debian a long time ago >I'll be using a different version of Linux. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your reply, but these are nonsensical statements in context. It's presenting an assumption that the governance systems in other versions are better. I've seen a lot of projects with BDFL leaders and no voting whatsoever. Linux itself is famous for permanently keeping a BDFL in charge and not really having voting, so in some sense we might be able to say they all suffer from a lack of voting methods in some areas.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  With secret voting you can deflect responsibility and not really hold anybody accountable, with a benevolent dictator... er, well it can't be anybody but Linus' fault as all decisions flow through him.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    That is fundamentally different from what the parent reply is saying and that makes no sense either. The entire point of putting open source code out there for free with no warranty is to avoid accountability, in favor of more transparency. A BDFL is only legally accountable to those who pay their salary, and the companies that care about accountability will pay them in exchange for signing private long-term contracts.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
blueflow 5y ago
I stand behind Debian to do votes in secrecy. During the RMS issue, I've seen many people who did not have their ferocity under control. This went as far as people wanting to have the "others" removed from the Debian project. People not being able to cast their vote without having to fear repercussions is justification enough for secret votes.
- svnpenn 5y ago
  If you can't justify your vote, then maybe you shouldn't be voting. Anonymous voting should be enjoyed by the masses, never the ones representing them.
  - blueflow 5y ago
    Your justifications are useless if they aren't being listened to, which was the problem back then. A huge lack of empathy and understanding.
  - mcosta 5y ago
    Justification doesn't work whe the other side is just yelling white supremacy
  - pavon 5y ago
    Debian developers are not representatives. They were not elected, and they are not representing anyone's opinion other than their own. The elected positions in Debian are mostly administrative and any decision requiring voting goes to the developers as a whole, not just the elected officials.
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > If you can't justify your vote, then maybe you shouldn't be voting. Sorry, wrong in every possible sense of the word. The only true way for an individual to be free from the consequence of placing their vote is for voting to be anonymous. Any argument that a voter must face direct repercussions for their vote makes voting pointless. > Anonymous voting should be enjoyed by the masses, never the ones representing them. Well, since the debian voters are not, as far as a I know, elected by voters themselves, they are not representing anyone.
scbrg 5y ago
I'm a long term Debian user, and while I'm not sure I'm super happy with this, which distro are you using that is is more transparent than Debian wrt their decision making process? It goes without saying that all the commercial distros are disqualified. Anything with a (B)DFL is obviously disqualified. Anything run by a small cabal that could easily communicate in an out of band way is disqualified. What do you have left?

throwaway82652 5y ago

>Stopped using Debian a long time ago >I'll be using a different version of Linux. I'm not disagreeing with the rest of your reply, but these are nonsensical statements in context. It's presenting an assumption that the governance systems in other versions are better. I've seen a lot of projects with BDFL leaders and no voting whatsoever. Linux itself is famous for permanently keeping a BDFL in charge and not really having voting, so in some sense we might be able to say they all suffer from a lack of voting methods in some areas.

colechristensen 5y ago
With secret voting you can deflect responsibility and not really hold anybody accountable, with a benevolent dictator... er, well it can't be anybody but Linus' fault as all decisions flow through him.
- throwaway82652 5y ago
  That is fundamentally different from what the parent reply is saying and that makes no sense either. The entire point of putting open source code out there for free with no warranty is to avoid accountability, in favor of more transparency. A BDFL is only legally accountable to those who pay their salary, and the companies that care about accountability will pay them in exchange for signing private long-term contracts.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

blueflow 5y ago

I stand behind Debian to do votes in secrecy. During the RMS issue, I've seen many people who did not have their ferocity under control. This went as far as people wanting to have the "others" removed from the Debian project. People not being able to cast their vote without having to fear repercussions is justification enough for secret votes.

svnpenn 5y ago
If you can't justify your vote, then maybe you shouldn't be voting. Anonymous voting should be enjoyed by the masses, never the ones representing them.
- blueflow 5y ago
  Your justifications are useless if they aren't being listened to, which was the problem back then. A huge lack of empathy and understanding.
- mcosta 5y ago
  Justification doesn't work whe the other side is just yelling white supremacy
- pavon 5y ago
  Debian developers are not representatives. They were not elected, and they are not representing anyone's opinion other than their own. The elected positions in Debian are mostly administrative and any decision requiring voting goes to the developers as a whole, not just the elected officials.
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > If you can't justify your vote, then maybe you shouldn't be voting. Sorry, wrong in every possible sense of the word. The only true way for an individual to be free from the consequence of placing their vote is for voting to be anonymous. Any argument that a voter must face direct repercussions for their vote makes voting pointless. > Anonymous voting should be enjoyed by the masses, never the ones representing them. Well, since the debian voters are not, as far as a I know, elected by voters themselves, they are not representing anyone.

scbrg 5y ago

I'm a long term Debian user, and while I'm not sure I'm super happy with this, which distro are you using that is is more transparent than Debian wrt their decision making process? It goes without saying that all the commercial distros are disqualified. Anything with a (B)DFL is obviously disqualified. Anything run by a small cabal that could easily communicate in an out of band way is disqualified. What do you have left?