[python-committers] Proposal on how to vote (was: An alternative governance model)

[Antoine Pitrou]

Le 19/07/2018 à 00:29, Victor Stinner a écrit :
> I hate cabals. I prefer to keep everything open and transparent, as
> this mailing list is public (even if only core developers are allowed
> to post).

Even if posting is public, you won't know whether there is a cabal or
not (unless you are part of the cabal -- I hope you aren't, are you? ;-)).

> Which drawback do you see of making the votes public?

Let's say I'm being asked if X should be a « next BDFL » (or Council
member, etc.) and I vote no publicly.  What is my position if X is
elected?  How will my vote be interpreted?  Will I get discriminated
against (even unconsciously) just because I didn't choose that person?

There are all kinds of pressures (or self-censorship phenomena) that can
occur with public voting.

(votes by elected representatives, conversely, are public, because being
elected it's important for the electors to know what the representatives
truly stand for)

Regards

Antoine.


> 
> Victor
> 
> 2018-07-19 0:26 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou <antoine at python.org>:
>>
>> By the way, should the vote be public or secret?
>> For such an important (and sensitive) matter, perhaps it would be wise
>> for it to be secret.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Antoine.
>>
>>
>> Le 19/07/2018 à 00:18, Łukasz Langa a écrit :
>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 4:56 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While I am totally fine with a super-majority of votes for something to be accepted, I don't think the minimum participation requirement will work. If people simply choose not to vote then they choose not to (we have no way to really compel people to vote).
>>>
>>> It could be easily added to the list of things expected from a core contributor. It's not like this is a laborious chore, neither is it happening often. There are countries where voting is mandatory.
>>>
>>> Taking a step back, there are two reasons I stress the importance of (almost) everybody voicing their support:
>>> - this makes the decision authoritative ("the committers have spoken");
>>> - this ensures that we haven't omitted somebody due to poor timing ("I was on a sabbatical and couldn't vote").
>>>
>>> If you feel like this is unrealistic because most of our committers aren't currently active, I hear you. But what I like even less is claiming that "we, the core team" made a decision when, say, just 35% of us voted. In such case it would be easier for those of us who disagree to claim the decision doesn't really represent the views of the greater core team.
>>>
>>> - Ł
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> python-committers mailing list
>>> python-committers at python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> python-committers mailing list
>> python-committers at python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers
>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/