Re: Open voting?
2009/11/20 Frédéric Goualard <Frederic.Goualard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> When voting on previous motions, votes (in particular, 'NO' votes) often
> contained arguments that were part of the ongoing overall discussion. I
> do not see any practical way for that to continue if we have two lists.
Elsewhere I described a solution to this: forwarding on contentful
messages from the voting list to the discussion list.
Also, Reply-To is appropriate in this context because all replies to
messages containing votes are by definition discussion. And there
cannot be any privacy concerns about redirecting replies from one
public list to another public list.
> If voters respect the format already used (particular subject with the
> motion number and the vote cast), I believe it is not too difficult to
> install some filter in one's mail tool to separate those voting mails
> from others. Then again, that goes against my feeling that some votes
> (which cannot be easily separated from others from the subject only at
> present) are part of the discussion. Maybe we should consider that
> voting mails with arguments should use some special 'subject' to
> identify them?
That will fail non-gracefully. But the inverse might not. Consider
tagging vote-only messages (i.e., "pure" votes) so they can be safely
ignored. That will fail occasionally, but the failures will cause
some irritation but not gaps in the discussion.
Lee Winter
NP Engineering
Nashua, New Hampshire