Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian decides to allow secret votes

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 280 posts

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#141

Post by beojan »

spondyl wrote: post #9

A brief summary because I had to re-read this a few times to figure out what was going on. Debian had a vote with 4 options: Option 1 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote" Option 2 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow verification" Option 3 "Reaffirm public voting" Option 4 "None of the above" (NOTA) The objection raised here is that Option 3 and Option 4 can be consi…

Debian uses the Condorcet method, so I don't think this is actually a problem.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#142

Post by [deleted] »

INTPenis wrote: post #7
hans1729 wrote: post #3

Quoted post unavailable.

I understand you, but you picked a strange hill to fight on. Lwn is such a simple website, and the article is just one paragraph. Also what is reader mode to you? Because in Firefox I clicked the little reader view icon in the url bar and it showed me a reader view with just the main content.

[deleted]

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#143

Post by contravariant »

sjmm1989 wrote: post #123
contravariant wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell the Schulze method does not satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives condition, and so adding an extra option can have an effect on the end result. However the upside is that you can actually recalculate what the result would have been if you remove one of the options, since the voting results are summarized as the number of people who prefer A to B, which shouldn't change if you remov…

The problem with this is that it is thinking in absolutes during a situation where people are often very willing to compromise their own beliefs just to be able to provide an answer. In normal elections we see this with people who don't like any choice, but don't want to spoil their ballot. So they pick their next best favorite. This means that if A is removed, people might pick B or C instead just because A isn't th…

As long as you assume people aren't suddenly going to prefer A to B when C is there and prefer B to A when C isn't then you can safely recalculate the result.

Of course people might not necessarily act rationally but you've got to draw a line somewhere, otherwise elections are simply undefined behaviour and talking about properties of elections becomes meaningless.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#144

Post by danuker »

charcircuit wrote: post #58
M2Ys4U wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electronic voting systems using zero knowledge proofs are superior to paper votes because it's possible to check for yourself that your vote was actually counted and not ignored. Which means somebody can hold a gun to your head and force you to prove that you voted and that your vote counted. That is not, to put it mildly, desirable in an election.

You can already do that with mail in ballots easily. Someone could also threaten you to record yourself filling out a paper ballot.

Unless they also demand that you film yourself continuously up to putting the envelope in a mailbox, they can't be sure you actually mailed the ballot or that you didn't invalidate the result later.

This would risk exposing yourself, and in turn, the intimidator.

But if only one ballot is mailed per citizen, they can be reasonably sure you didn't vote for the competition.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#145

Post by mjw1007 »

incomingpain wrote: post #132

Quoted post unavailable.

I don't think it's about infighting.

Debian's constitution says the Debian Developers may vote to publish "position statements about issues of the day", and some developers want to use those for the sort of political statement that might make people angry with them.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#146

Post by blueflow »

svnpenn wrote: post #138
blueflow wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Your justifications are useless if they aren't being listened to, which was the problem back then. A huge lack of empathy and understanding.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#147

Post by mjw1007 »

spondyl wrote: post #9

A brief summary because I had to re-read this a few times to figure out what was going on. Debian had a vote with 4 options: Option 1 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote" Option 2 "Hide identities of Developers casting a particular vote and allow verification" Option 3 "Reaffirm public voting" Option 4 "None of the above" (NOTA) The objection raised here is that Option 3 and Option 4 can be consi…

It's not about splitting the vote in that way; Debian's system is robust to that.

It's about the 3:1 supermajority requirement that was needed for Option 1 and Option 2.

It turns out that their rules for dealing with this work by comparing those options against NOTA only; the problem is that it's plausible that many of the voters didn't realise this.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#148

Post by rlpb »

incomingpain wrote: post #132

Quoted post unavailable.

I think it's misleading to claim that this came about due to "infighting".

It came about due to https://www.debian.org/vote/2021/vote_002 leading to DDs fearing being individually targeted due to how they did or did not vote. On technical matters, I support the idea that voters' reputations be affected by their voting record. On matters like this vote (please read it!), not so much. Maybe it's OK for the voting record to be public, but any individual harassment that might follow would be out of order and is a good reason to make such votes private.

Re: Debian decides to allow secret votes

#149

Post by bayindirh »

svnpenn wrote: post #135
incomingpain wrote: post #132

Quoted post unavailable.

I agree. No healthy group would have even considered this awful idea. Hopefully people many people can "vote" to never use Debian again.

> No healthy group would have even considered this awful idea.

HN can be considered a healthy group, but most of the people here are anonymous already. What gives?

Post reply on HN