2016 SPI board elections

Philippe Cloutier chealer at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 13:58:03 UTC 2016

Greetings to all, and in particular to those I have not had the chance 
to collaborate with yet.
Yesterday I became a SPI member, apparently thanks to Martin 
Zobel-Helas, just in time for the 2016 SPI board elections, in which I 
was able to vote.

  Position statements

    Joshua D. Drake

Just one comment on a specific statement, Joshua's. It contains:
> Getting business items in order such as proper insurance and 
> professional services.

What this means is vague for me (I fail to see what "business items" 
means concretely).


Most statements say a lot more about what one has done than about what 
one intends to do. There's still one easy information about who 
candidates are which is usually missing : their age.

  My vote

I had never heard about half of the candidates. I read all of the 
platforms, but many candidatures were difficult for me to compare. I 
ordered the candidates this way:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz
> -
> Luca Filipozzi
> Craig Small
> Martin Zobel-Helas
> -
> Valerie Young
> Peter Eisentraut
> Tim Potter
> Stephen Frost
> -
> Andrew Tridgell
> R. Tyler Croy
> Philip Balister
> Joshua D. Drake
> Joerg Jaspert

I put dashes between candidates who left me significantly different 
impressions. A candidate above a certain dashed line seemed more 
preferable to me than one below that same line.
Since I could not express indifference between 2 candidates and express 
a preference between those candidates and others at the same time, I 
ranked some candidates randomly. The result follows:

> Your vote will be kept confidential. To make it possible for you to 
> verify that your vote was counted it will be associated with a secret 
> cookie in the result:
> |0259f9f5fc582feb6b85db2d377a239b HEJMLDIFKBACG|

I ranked candidates based on what their statements said about their 
achievements, their goals, and my prior perception of them. Being a 
long-time Debian developer, my ranking surely shows some bias. I was 
hoping for commitments to transparency but did not read much on that.

I have had positive interactions with Martin, who recently showed 
concern for transparency. As it took more than a year for my own 
application to be processed, I liked Jimmy's statement because it 
mentioned there was a problem with delays (although it did not 
specifically mention membership delays).

Most candidates have an impressive background. There was a single 
candidate I considered putting below "None of the Above"... but there 
was no NOTA anyway. Thanks to all those offering themselves.

  Voting issue

After entering my ranking, I clicked the "Cast Vote" button. I was not 
expecting this to fail and therefore did not pay huge attention, but it 
seems it failed. I believe the same page reloaded. What I had entered in 
the field was not lost. After I clicked the button a second time, my 
vote was successfully cast.

As I was not extremely attentive, there may be a ~ 1% chance I did not 
properly click the button. This does not mean there was a server-side 
issue, but the client was Firefox 45 on Windows 10, which is really 
reliable for such simple pages.

  Issue tracking

The desire to properly report this presumed issue brings me to a 
meta-issue: does SPI not have an issue tracking system?
I only found related discussion in a 2012 IRC log, from 21:15 to 21:18: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20160716/85e29484/attachment.html>

More information about the Spi-general mailing list