[python-committers] Proposal on how to vote (was: An alternative governance model)
brett at python.org
Wed Jul 18 20:50:49 EDT 2018
[can I just say how much I've missed having both you and Tim around, Alex?
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 17:28 Alex Martelli via python-committers, <
python-committers at python.org> wrote:
> There are plenty of precedents for mandatory voting, but the enforcement
> mechanisms (if any) appear not to be applicable to our case. Note the "if
> any": several countries declare voting a citizen's duty (in their
> Constitution or otherwise) but don't actually enforce this duty in any way.
> For example, that's the case in the United States: if you apply for
> naturalization you will be quizzed on many things, including "what are the
> duties of a citizen", and one of the latter is "participate in the
> democratic process" which includes voting -- but if you don't, no
> enforcement action is taken against you. In contrast, if you get a jury
> summons (jury duty being another of those citizen duties) and repeatedly
> fail to show up, you may end up in jail -- now THAT is enforcement of the
> duty (and no Python community organism has, nor should have, such power of
And that lack of enforcement power is what makes me worry about mandatory
participation to make a vote considered legitimate.
> In Italy, where voting is declared to be a duty in the Constitution, at
> the start of the Republic you'd get (until next election) a stamp of "non
> ha votato" ("did not vote") in your publicly accessible judiciary record
> (it would come up in any background search -- and, in a country where
> firing employees was notoriously hard, some opined that such a flaw might
> be grounds for dismissal if the employer so wished, although I've never
> heard of it happening). That was abolished 25 years ago, in part because it
> was randomly/capriciously enforced (many judicial districts were too
> otherwise-busy to go through voting records and apply/remove the stamp!-).
> So, now, Italy is in the vast camp of countries declaring voting a duty
> (Italy's constitution was not changed on this subject) but not enforcing
> the "duty" at all (indeed, failing to show up to vote is now often
> advocated by adversaries of referendums, which have a 50% minimum
> participation threshold to be valid and may well be easier to defeat by
> getting people to just not show up -- since many others won't anyway for
> other reasons -- than by getting them to vote against).
> Since I originally brought up a parallel between "which BDFL" voting, and
> a Papal conclave, I would be remiss to fail to mention that since 1274 the
> Cardinals are locked up "with a key" ("cum clave") until a Pope does get
> elected -- usually a good-enough incentive to vote (though once the
> citizens of the town where the conclave was held had to decide after a few
> failed votes to only send in bread and water -- and later, said citizens
> removed the roof of the palace where the Cardinals were locked up, hoping
> that rain may speed up the proceedings). Colorful, but, again, not really
> applicable in our case.
> What's left? The "public naming and shaming" Italy used until a quarter
> century ago might work -- just make a little site listing the committers
> who, while having a right to vote, haven't voted (yet). A VERY long voting
> period might also help -- amendments to the US Constitution originally had
> unlimited times for ratification (the 27th amendment, originally the 2nd
> one proposed in 1789, was ratified 202 years after proposal), though these
> days 7 years is a more customary time limit for ratification. Not sure if
> these are good ideas.
> Another possibility is to avoid having separate thresholds for
> participation and approval (US constitution amendments work that way --
> with the specifics being a threshold only for approval out of all States,
> not how many States have voted for or against). I.e, if we decide 2/3 is
> OK, a proposal might be approved if 2/3 of *eligible* voters have voted
> for it -- no matter how many of the remaining 1/3 have voted against, or
> not (yet?) voted at all (since, if 100% of eligible voters could be
> bothered to vote, once the proposal gets 2/3 of the votes in favor, it does
> not matter whether the remaining 1/3 vote against, abstain, or whatever).
> This is not mutually exclusive with other ideas (of which, out of what I've
> mentioned, the viable ones -- though not necessarily wise! -- would be
> "public naming" of non-voters, and VERY long voting periods).
That is a good point of clarification. If we did super-majority, is it of
all counted *votes* or all possible *voters*? We might be surprised by the
participation levels, or we might be disappointed. So we might have to go
on what we think is reasonable, try it, and if there's a threshold
requirement then be prepared to have to vote again (and again ...) until
the threshold is met (or we lower the threshold 😁).
Another bit of concrete numbers: to get 84 people (roughly 2/3 of 91) to
have made a commit you have look back 7 years of commit history (that will
include non-core folks and those who don't have privileges anymore).
> Lastly, I suspect two votes should be separated: (1) what model we adopt
> (BDFL, ruling triumvirate, whatever); (2) the model having been chosen, WHO
> is going to serve (as BDFL, as triumvirate member, and so on)...
I'm assuming that's how we will want to structure it as probably any of
these proposals will specify how someone(s) will be chosen.
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:46 PM Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Łukasz Langa <lukasz at langa.pl> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> Given that we don’t have a lot of levers in our tool chest to compel
>> voting, what would you propose we do if we get only a 35% participation
>> rate? We can’t drag people to the polls, the most we can really do is
>> either keep running elections and hope you hit whatever threshold you
>> decide on, or you start removing people who can vote until you’ve removed
>> enough people that the people who are participating now make up whatever
>> your target participation rate is.
>> The first choice there strikes me as unrealistic. Hope is not a strategy,
>> and I fail to see why repeatedly offering the same vote multiple times is
>> likely to increase the participation rate. In fact, I think it’s likely to
>> decease it as people get tired of having to do it over again and just start
>> giving up and viewing it as noise.
>> The second choice seems… dishonest to me? You’re not really increasing
>> the participation of the vote, you’re just juicing the numbers to make the
>> participation rate higher. It’s selectively defining who is eligible to
>> vote to make the numbers look better.
>> Is there another option I’m missing to compel people to vote?
>> > 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”);
>> I think this is largely a non-issue. In the US we do not have mandatory
>> elections, and I don’t see very many people challenging the authority of
>> said elections due to the large percentage of non-voters. The most I
>> generally see if people scolding those who don’t vote.
>> > - this ensures that we haven't omitted somebody due to poor timing ("I
>> was on a sabbatical and couldn't vote”).
>> Unless you require 100% voting participation, it doesn’t ensure this, it
>> just makes it less likely. If you target 90%, then a full 10% of the people
>> could have been excluded due to poor timing.
>> I don’t think it’s possible to fully eliminate this risk, but I think the
>> best possible way of handling it is to advertise the vote well in advance,
>> and allow the vote itself to take place over a reasonable amount of time.
>> The more advance notice, and the larger the window of time is to actually
>> vote in, the less likely timing becomes an issue. Just to pluck some random
>> times out of the air, if you advertise the voting for 3 months and allow
>> voting to happen any time in a months time, that gives people a full 4
>> months they will have to be completely unavailable to have no idea the
>> voting is happening, and be unable to access a computer for a handful of
>> minutes to actually do the vote at all in a month.
>> > 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.
>> python-committers mailing list
>> python-committers at python.org
>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the python-committers