[Foundation] (no subject)

Gregory Leblanc gleblanc at linuxweasel.com
Thu Aug 22 01:42:09 CDT 2002

On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 22:08, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 8/21/02 12:46 PM, "Adam Theo" <theo at theoretic.com> wrote:
> > Up until Iain's posts here, I was not liking the closed ballot idea. I
> > did think it would be best to have all votes open and viewable after the
> > fact. But after reading Iain's argument about needing to protect people
> > in the corporate world that we are trying to woo, I grudgingly accept a
> > closed ballot. But how about also allowing voters to decide if their
> > vote is made public or kept closed? closed by default.
> Giving people the option of revealing their official vote creates just as
> bad a situation.  Imagine, I run some evil technology company and I want to
> coerce votes.  I tell people I'll pay them $10 if they vote a certain way
> (or free licenses to my software).  They of course have to prove it by
> showing their vote publically.  I also let it be known to all my employees
> that if they don't vote for my agenda and prove it by showing their vote
> publically, they can forget their X-mas bonuses.
> If there is no way to know the official vote of any particular person these
> strong arm tactics are much more difficult to carry out.

There's always going to be some threat of employers influencing how
their employees vote, even if we were to have a super-secure means of
communicating the vote, someones boss could hover over their shoulder
and encourage them to vote a certain way.

But with that concern in mind, what kind of people and companies do we
want to be in the Jabber Software Foundation?  I don't have access to
the JSF membership list in an easily manipulated format at the moment,
but it looks like a fair number of people are Individuals.  I don't see
that there's any company that has anywhere near the number of JSF
members as there are individuals, let alone enough to have a major
impact on the outcome of an election by strong-arming their employees

If companies are using these 'strong-arm' tactics, are they really
appropriate for the JSF?  I wouldn't be willing to work for any company
that tried to force me to vote a certain way.  Among other things, it
means that they're probably not honest in other business dealings, and
that they don't have any confidence in their ability to communicate
their ideas effectively to the rest of the JSF, the council, and the
board.  I don't want these companies involved with Jabber because their
decisions won't be the ones that are best for Jabber.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant.  But unless there's a better
reason for secret ballots (until somebody comes up with a decent
explanation, closed ballot == ballot that only registered people can
cast), I'm wholeheartedly opposed to them.

More information about the Members mailing list