From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E42138334 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 045A9E078A; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:45:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72BE9E0788 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 20:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id s21so7947482ioa.1 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:45:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gentoo-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XITXj1C9XBAW5HYkspnIUeGhqn7Afd9qRTcUzAj+8jY=; b=aOQGI4fPdI4LEtkxNhfwcl2e/1iJoK7LWxcpFCvm2Y9v3uAICOej8VIF5MkerZhs3N lzJE4LVy9VjoEMx4zEfxrf3q8vvS+RKJdFZLiNrBpVn4M0O3SgMlA//E2SxqdUT157CR Y5SpT4rVgK2wQ3yeVUpIXmJ0dvQzS/CkMmoRNVHlIItYbx6MwhmsBByWdg4H03rYanRk GOVvx5+4mioZcsygjUcIAP0vWiSvIjOdI0pFOZDv0YChrZyeAks8lMgDQUBHdkYfh6mX k17/Rmdb5QpwIEFuTW2BrdAIXO3pWvejeU7CrN2v5OH/QIXMTezOPEcuSElGs56WRuGU sGKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XITXj1C9XBAW5HYkspnIUeGhqn7Afd9qRTcUzAj+8jY=; b=BpirF830IWNJcZtYYXU6+LxGoA8gk2QF22jIxC8B4pJO6ph9E3RuLFMbXJ2h9+Nj2H QPMUp3WngznSwuqiBkt5hJ4Myrn0PWmcDhueC3dCKP/ZNbKKxPThbsWva24NQy6QDg3W 74YhXT8jWMCE47coqmUhezIBEfwaAak0mZrqX+4SUc4VefftYCJKZazX3vPHdT5J9PZB 0OjJuTH6SWSZ1KIg7mOlDx0NoSGgh/8qxjHNwQW6daO8RxaFd5dB68vZjKzoZswH5tdE 1Pn6uzqhK+C/XmaxJ+NkBsApt9jJNRh0wjdFKaCIxDmwG2F0gMwZneJQaQwQLMvj9UPu F79Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWn5snaA6sOKoPBDHrArB1WFl/c4ASeguh3zeoWxRprUqTRz3kc o/vhILiTxY8MfGl8yQ7IuSldDM4cBgDq/ABJZGJDPGSG X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwhjN/PObIqdPkIIxui7Zxx+voy1cTrSS73H3fIinvBR1/eC0VroXMTHsNIcgS9lJxlc9AyHPE411gXFjPVagw= X-Received: by 2002:a02:94:: with SMTP id 142mr1864322jaa.4.1567716337135; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Alec Warner Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:45:25 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] [RFC] Alternative methods for determining 'interest in Foundation affairs' To: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006252440591d467a3" X-Archives-Salt: e8308611-6c5c-4b84-8fae-7fd1bc03d1eb X-Archives-Hash: 5c29aeea2e09b003ea41e65bfdb74f75 --0000000000006252440591d467a3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny w= rote: > Hi, everyone. > > As some of you have read, I have proposed a new privacy-oriented voting > frontend for Gentoo [1]. However, the whole idea was rendered pretty > much pointless by Trustees demanding information on who cast a vote. > This is currently used to determine 'interest in Foundation', > and therefore kick inactive Foundation members. To be honest, I think > it's misguided, for three reasons: > > 1. It intrudes on privacy of voters. I suppose it's not *that major* > but still I don't think it's appropriate to publish a 'shame list' of > people who haven't voted for whatever reason. > I believe in your right to vote and have the content of the vote be private. I don't believe in your right to vote anonymously in Foundation elections. The fact that you voted should be public. The foundation has minimal requirements for membership; if you don't vote in foundation affairs (1 vote a year!) then I don't see the point in being a member. It's basically the only difference afforded to members[0]! I don't believe we do publish a list of who voted in every election, but we do publish a membership list and there is definitely a correlation and its intentional. > > 2. It introduces a big weakness in the system. My whole idea was to > make it practically impossible to sniff votes after the election is > prepared. With this solution, anyone with sufficient privileges > (election officials, infra) can trivially passively sniff votes. > We need to know who cast votes, we don't need to know the content of the votes. I assume building such a system is possible (maybe it isn't?) > > 3. It is really meaningless. Casting a vote does not really indicate > any interest in GF. It only indicates that someone has done the minimal > effort to avoid being kicked. There is no reason to conflate the two. > I'm certainly interested in other avenues of interest, but I don't see very many in this thread other than "AGM attendance" and "asking people if they are interested[0]" > > > I believe we should consider other options of determining activity. > Depending on whether we actually want to keep people actually interested > in GF, or just those caring enough to stay, I can think of a few > options. > > The most obvious solution would be to take AGM attendance as indication > of interest. It would also create an interest in actually attending, > and make it possible to finally reach a quorum. However, it's rather > a poor idea given that AGMs tend to happen in middle of the night for > European devs. We would probably have to accept excuses for not > attending, and then measuring attendance will probably be meaningless > anyway. > Attendance of a single meeting per year is a bad idea without some kind of proxy system in place, same as any corporation. > > Another option (which some people aren't going to like) is to require > all Foundation members to be Gentoo devs (but not the other way around), > and then terminate GF membership along with developer status. Given > that there's only a few non-dev members, and most of them are retired > devs whose membership simply didn't terminate by existing rules yet, I > think there shouldn't really be a problem in making the few interested > members non-commit devs by existing rules. > This doesn't really imply interested in the Foundation either though; because the developership and Foundation are separate. > > Finally, if we really don't care we could just send pings and terminate > membership of people that don't answer in time. This is pretty much > similar to the current idea with voting, except it doesn't pretend to be > meaningful. > The point of tracking who votes is that votes are nominally the only real difference between members and non-members; so in the end it's one of the few ways members can express their interest. If we had shares, then owning those would be an interest; or donations, or funding requests, or some other idea. -A [0] A plausible reality is that most members don't even have 'an interest' in Foundation affairs and if we increase the minimum requirement for membership we might see a precipitous drop in member count; we would need to debate whether or not this is a desired outcome or not. > > > WDYT? > > [1] > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/6977bf6f9b72a17847fdc9= 3afd4d9a9f > > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --0000000000006252440591d467a3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 1:14 PM Micha=C5= =82 G=C3=B3rny <m= gorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
Hi, everyone.

As some of you have read, I have proposed a new privacy-oriented voting
frontend for Gentoo [1].=C2=A0 However, the whole idea was rendered pretty<= br> much pointless by Trustees demanding information on who cast a vote.
This is currently used to determine 'interest in Foundation',
and therefore kick inactive Foundation members.=C2=A0 To be honest, I think=
it's misguided, for three reasons:

1. It intrudes on privacy of voters.=C2=A0 I suppose it's not *that maj= or*
but still I don't think it's appropriate to publish a 'shame li= st' of
people who haven't voted for whatever reason.

=
I believe in your right to vote and have the content of the vote= be private. I don't believe in your right to vote anonymously in Found= ation elections. The fact that you voted should be public. The foundation= =C2=A0has minimal requirements for membership; if you don't vote in fou= ndation affairs (1 vote a year!) then I don't see the point in being a = member. It's basically the only difference afforded to members[0]! I do= n't believe we do publish a list of who voted in every election, but we= do publish a membership list and there is definitely a correlation and its= intentional.
=C2=A0

2. It introduces a big weakness in the system.=C2=A0 My whole idea was to make it practically impossible to sniff votes after the election is
prepared.=C2=A0 With this solution, anyone with sufficient privileges
(election officials, infra) can trivially passively sniff votes.

We need to know who cast votes, we don't need= to know the content of the votes. I assume building such a system is possi= ble (maybe it isn't?)
=C2=A0

3. It is really meaningless.=C2=A0 Casting a vote does not really indicate<= br> any interest in GF.=C2=A0 It only indicates that someone has done the minim= al
effort to avoid being kicked.=C2=A0 There is no reason to conflate the two.=

I'm certainly interested in other = avenues of interest, but I don't see very many in this thread other tha= n "AGM attendance" and "asking people if they are interested= [0]"
=C2=A0


I believe we should consider other options of determining activity.
Depending on whether we actually want to keep people actually interested in GF, or just those caring enough to stay, I can think of a few
options.

The most obvious solution would be to take AGM attendance as indication
of interest.=C2=A0 It would also create an interest in actually attending,<= br> and make it possible to finally reach a quorum.=C2=A0 However, it's rat= her
a poor idea given that AGMs tend to happen in middle of the night for
European devs.=C2=A0 We would probably have to accept excuses for not
attending, and then measuring attendance will probably be meaningless
anyway.

Attendance of a single meeting = per year is a bad idea without some kind of proxy system in place, same as = any corporation.
=C2=A0

Another option (which some people aren't going to like) is to require all Foundation members to be Gentoo devs (but not the other way around), and then terminate GF membership along with developer status.=C2=A0 Given that there's only a few non-dev members, and most of them are retired devs whose membership simply didn't terminate by existing rules yet, I<= br> think there shouldn't really be a problem in making the few interested<= br> members non-commit devs by existing rules.

<= div>This doesn't really imply interested in the Foundation either thoug= h; because the developership and Foundation are separate.
=C2=A0<= /div>

Finally, if we really don't care we could just send pings and terminate=
membership of people that don't answer in time.=C2=A0 This is pretty mu= ch
similar to the current idea with voting, except it doesn't pretend to b= e
meaningful.

The point of tracking who v= otes is that votes are nominally the only real difference between members a= nd non-members; so in the end it's one of the few ways members can expr= ess their interest. If we had shares, then owning those would be an interes= t; or donations, or funding requests, or some other idea.

-A

[0] A plausible reality is that most me= mbers don't even have 'an interest' in Foundation affairs and i= f we increase the minimum requirement for membership we might see a precipi= tous=C2=A0drop in member count; we would need to debate whether or not this= is a desired outcome or not.
=C2=A0


WDYT?

[1] https://archi= ves.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/6977bf6f9b72a17847fdc93afd4d9a9f<= br>
--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--0000000000006252440591d467a3--