<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Greetings to all, and in particular to those I have not had the
chance to collaborate with yet.<br>
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.<br>
<h1>Position statements</h1>
<h2>Joshua D. Drake</h2>
Just one comment on a specific statement, Joshua's. It contains:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Getting business items in order such as
proper insurance and professional services.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What this means is vague for me (I fail to see what "business items"
means concretely).<br>
<h2>General</h2>
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.<br>
<h1>My vote</h1>
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:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Jimmy Kaplowitz<br>
-<br>
Luca Filipozzi<br>
Craig Small<br>
Martin Zobel-Helas<br>
-<br>
Valerie Young<br>
Peter Eisentraut<br>
Tim Potter<br>
Stephen Frost<br>
-<br>
Andrew Tridgell<br>
R. Tyler Croy<br>
Philip Balister<br>
Joshua D. Drake<br>
Joerg Jaspert</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
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:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>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:</p>
<p><code>0259f9f5fc582feb6b85db2d377a239b HEJMLDIFKBACG</code></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<h1>Voting issue</h1>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<h1>Issue tracking</h1>
The desire to properly report this presumed issue brings me to a
meta-issue: does SPI not have an issue tracking system?<br>
I only found related discussion in a 2012 IRC log, from 21:15 to
21:18: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/logs/2012/2012-04-12-log.txt">http://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/logs/2012/2012-04-12-log.txt</a><br>
</body>
</html>