W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > June 2014

Re: Don't disclose election results

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 13:49:35 +0200
Message-ID: <538F07CF.5060002@berjon.com>
To: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>
CC: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On 03/06/2014 19:46 , Brian Kardell wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com
> <mailto:robin@berjon.com>> wrote:
> As long as they are anonymous, the only way that this is true is in the
> event that you literally only got 5 votes.

Which does indeed happen.

> Your analogy is better suited to a congress in which precisely the
> same things can happen, and do on a daily basis..

But for professionals paid *primarily* for this, and in votes that 
concern topics, not people.

> Also, class president in school - and yet people continue to live
> their life despite the fact that high school is highly emotional and
> popularity is considered important to a lot of people who would run.

Well, since you're on that example... I was elected class president the 
six years in a row that I ran, as well as to the students' board, school 
board, district board, and a few other such things. And almost twenty 
years later, there are some people who are *still* unhappy about the way 
some of those votes turned out.

I don't think that school politics is a great model to import. We 
already have enough kindergarten tactics at play.

Also, you're only looking at the psychological side. I did also mention 
the career side. Some people have their careers at their companies 
staked on the fact that they carry some influence in W3C. As I noted, 
based on looking at results, this can be true and yet the person in 
question can lose (by a lot). But it's a fact that companies will try to 
quantify influence through votes. That's a bad proxy to enable.

We *already* have cases of people who are being made to run by their 
employer, and who have to put together desperate campaigns because their 
livelihood depends on it. More information worsens the case.

And beyond that: what Karl said.


>     Presumably for precisely this sort of reason, I have seen people not
>     vote for one of their close friends. Deanonymising might have made
>     them feel obliged to vote for that person. Sure enough a politician
>     getting trounced can be tough, but you're trounced mostly by total
>     strangers. If you've been a part of this community and you get five
>     votes, you'll feel trounced by your friends.
>
> Maybe.  I honestly feel like we deal with more contentious things in web
> standards literally every waking moment, but I take your point.  I
> wouldn't be happy if I ran and lost in a landslide, that's true - but
> even given all of my substantial issues, I think I know that about
> myself and either wouldn't run or would move past it pretty quickly.

Yeah, I wouldn't care about losing, not even in a landslide. You win 
some, you lose some. But that's not the point. For instance, I also 
don't mind being insulted in public by high-profile individuals 
(especially since Karl then sends me hugs and kisses offline!); yet I 
still think that sort of behaviour should be dealt with because it is 
harmful.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 11:50:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:10 UTC