[Qgis-psc] [VOTE] Re: AGM voting: invalid votes

[Paolo Cavallini]

Hi Nathan,
thanks for your thoughts. This is exactly my opinion. True anonymity is difficult to achieve, but the current situation is unfair IMHO.
Cheers.

On 3 May 2020 01:19:03 CEST, Nathan Woodrow <madmanwoo at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey,
>
>I was always under the assumption the votes are anonymous and IMO it
>should
>stay that way.    I feel like any votes for this kind of thing
>(positions
>of power etc) should always be anonymous to avoid 1) hurt feeling "I
>thought they liked me why didn't they vote for me" 2) people
>questioning
>other people's votes after the fact e.g bullying 3) if just feels off
>to me
>for this kind of thing.
>
>It's like when we vote here in Australia. We get marked off that we
>have
>voted before we vote and then we vote in a seperate section with no
>connection to name.  I know that doing this non electronically allows
>for
>this flow better, but I think we should look for options to allow that
>kind
>of thing.
>
>I know we are doing the best we can for now but if double votes and/or
>being voted for the different positions is a issue I think we should
>address that first before dumping lists of names and who voted for who.
>
>- Nathan
>
>On Sun, 3 May 2020, 4:54 am Tim Sutton, <tim at kartoza.com> wrote:
>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On Sat, 2 May 2020, 17:28 Andreas Neumann, <a.neumann at carto.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We can discuss it in the next meeting. But I am also reluctant, as
>we
>>> didn't communicate it in advance. Not ideal. We can start doing next
>year
>>> and clearly tell people about it.
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>> Am 02.05.20 um 18:11 schrieb Marco Bernasocchi:
>>>
>>> We could do that, we need to check in the charter and previous
>>> communications if it is not said somewhere that the votes are
>anonymous. We
>>> need to be sure that we'd not break anybody's trust by maybe
>changing a
>>> policy.
>>>
>>> let's discuss it Tuesday.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Marco
>>> On 02.05.20 17:33, Tim Sutton wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Why don’t we already publish the list of voters and their votes
>(with
>>> email addresses removed) somewhere e.g. in the AGM minutes. That way
>all
>>> voters can confirm that their vote was registered as intended, and
>members
>>> of the country groups can confirm that their collective vote was
>recorded
>>> as expected?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On 2 May 2020, at 12:51, Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Marco,
>>>
>>> My comments are inline.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 13:22, Marco Bernasocchi <marco at qgis.org>
>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> On 02.05.20 11:20, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I kind of compare our voting members with a parliament. Because
>voting
>>>> members are representatives of other people,
>>>>
>>>> only half of the voting members represent other people
>>>>
>>>
>>> One could really argue about this. Our contributor community is much
>>> larger than we have community voting members. Also, the community
>votes for
>>> their voting members to represent the whole community. So in this
>sense,
>>> all voting members vote on behalf of a larger community they
>represent.
>>>
>>>
>>>> it is important that these votes are public and not anonymous. All
>votes
>>>> of parliament members are public (at least in many countries). In
>>>> Switzerland there is a website that publishes all votes of all
>parliament
>>>> members:
>>>>
>https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/abstimmungen/wer-hat-wie-abgestimmt-im-nationalrat
>>>>  (available in german, french, italian - no english). There you can
>>>> filter by party, topic, people, etc. - it is important that these
>votes are
>>>> public, so one can decide which persons to re-elect or check if the
>voting
>>>> member voted as promised to the people they represent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think anonymous voting would be important if all our end users
>would
>>>> have a vote.
>>>>
>>>> as above, half of the people are end users.
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense to you?
>>>>
>>>> to me both options are ok, we just need to decide. it is just a bit
>>>> weird for me being candidate and taking care of the correctness of
>the
>>>> votes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree here. As Paolo said, we could  have 2 people outside of PSC
>to
>>> take care about a correct voting.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Even if we decided to go anonymous, this would be technically
>difficult
>>>> as Tim said.
>>>>
>>>> not really, it depends on the solution we use. With loomio we can
>do
>>>> anonymous voting [0] for logged in users. They have a whole guide
>on how to
>>>> run virtual AGM's [0]
>>>>
>>> That's good to know that a technical solution exists, should we
>decide
>>> that we want anonymous voting.
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> *Tim Sutton*
>>> tim at qgis.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marco Bernasocchi
>>>
>>> QGIS.org Co-chairhttp://berna.io
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc

-- 
Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20200503/97e7ec87/attachment.html>