Debian Project Leader Elections 2007: Draft ballot

Josip Rodin · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 82

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:45:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> [ ] Choice 1: Wouter Verhelst
> > ...
> >> [ ] Choice A: None Of The Above
>
> > Would it be possible to use just letters, rather than both letters
> > and numbers ? That will make everything a little less confusing -
> > in particular it makes it impossible to mistake rankings for choices
> > and vice versa.
>
> Just don't think of 0xA as a latter, since it is not. Anyway,
> internally devotee uses numbers starting at 1 for the ranking as well
> as the options on the ballot.

We strayed from the real point here... the point is that these internal
variables are completely irrelevant to the voters and should be avoided.
The program can detect the line "[ ... ] Option name" just as easily
as it can detect "[ ... ] specialstring: Option name".

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 678

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:43:31 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy.DeleteThis@entuzijast.net>
said:

> We strayed from the real point here... the point is that these
> internal variables are completely irrelevant to the voters and
> should be avoided. The program can detect the line "[ ... ] Option
> name" just as easily as it can detect "[ ... ] specialstring: Option
> name".

This by itself is not justification enough. The fact that the
ballot provides redundant information that is irrelevant to the
users, but in turn eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled ballots
seems like a win. Given that ballots can be word wrapped, can have
common leading text, might have words that are damaged by MUA's not
encoding a non-ascii word identically; it makes sense to increase the
robustness of the parser by giving it a well known, unique prefix.

Also, the current implementation optimizes for potential
re-sorted ballot lines by using the Choice N string to determine
which index in the options array the ranking is referring to; and I
do not see enough of a reason to refactor the code.

So, if some one can demonstrate to me that the parser will not
become less robust, and that the new code is equally resilient to
MUA mangling of ballots, and that the increased complexity of code
does not impact future maintenance, and that all this effort has a
tangible benefit --- I'll consider reevaluating this design decision.

manoj
--
O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law: Murphy was an optimist.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta.DeleteThis@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Josip Rodin · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 82

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:11:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled ballots

It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters, yes, but
if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently confusing.

> Given that ballots can be word wrapped, can have common leading text,
> might have words that are damaged by MUA's not encoding a non-ascii word
> identically; it makes sense to increase the robustness of the parser by
> giving it a well known, unique prefix.

I don't see how any of that is more important than having a straightforward
text for the voters to read. This is a user interface, it is not a machine
interface; robustness towards the human eyes and minds is more important
than robustness towards code parsers IMO.

Word wrapping and leading text is fairly inconsequent so they can be
eliminated (disallowed) without much problem. Non-ASCII options are
possible with e.g. people's names, but if we know for a fact that they
aren't supported by the entire voting environment, they should be avoided.
I should hope that people wouldn't be fussy about it given that we have
already standardized on the English language anyway. (Raphael? Smile

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 678

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:04:06 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy RemoveThis @entuzijast.net> said:

> On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 04:11:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
>> ballots

> It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
> yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently
> confusing.

[ ] Choice 1: Foooo
[ ] Choice 2: Baar

Is inherently confusing? To whom? Are you personally
confused? or are you speculating?

Do we really want opinions from someone who is confused by
Choice N

>> Given that ballots can be word wrapped, can have common leading
>> text, might have words that are damaged by MUA's not encoding a
>> non-ascii word identically; it makes sense to increase the
>> robustness of the parser by giving it a well known, unique prefix.

> I don't see how any of that is more important than having a
> straightforward text for the voters to read. This is a user
> interface, it is not a machine interface; robustness towards the
> human eyes and minds is more important than robustness towards code
> parsers IMO.

I do not consider Choice 1/Choice 2 prefixes to be
non-straighforward, so the rest of your statements do not apply, as
far as my opinion is considered.

> Word wrapping and leading text is fairly inconsequent so they can be
> eliminated (disallowed) without much problem. Non-ASCII options are
> possible with e.g. people's names, but if we know for a fact that
> they aren't supported by the entire voting environment, they should
> be avoided. I should hope that people wouldn't be fussy about it
> given that we have already standardized on the English language
> anyway. (Raphael? Smile

I would prefer not to mangle peoples names. I also would
prefer to not further refuse ballots that have been mangled by the
MUA before signing. In other words, I would personally not cater to
people who are confused by Choice N prefixes to options by adding
more code, making the parser fragile, and make for more bugs that the
secretary has to fix.

Color me unconvinced by the need, or the desirability, of the
proposed change.

à¤®à¤¨à¥‹à¤œ à¤¶à¥à¤°à¤¿à¤µà¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¤µ
--
Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the
machine, or the person who operates it.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta RemoveThis @debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Josip Rodin · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 82

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:13:03AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
> >> ballots
>
> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
> > yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is inherently
> > confusing.
>
> [ ] Choice 1: Foooo
> [ ] Choice 2: Baar
>
> Is inherently confusing? To whom? Are you personally
> confused? or are you speculating?

That is inherently confusing because you also have to use the numbers 1 and
2 for the rankings. Using the same set of options for two different things,
where you could use two distinct sets of options for each different thing,
is what is inherently confusing.

> Do we really want opinions from someone who is confused by
> Choice N

I knew this was going to come up Smile

Obviously all of us can understand
the distinction between using numbers as rankings, and using numbers
as designations, once it is explained. Point is, we shouldn't have to
be explaining it when it can be done another, more straightforward way.

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 678

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:02:22 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy DeleteThis @entuzijast.net> said:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:13:03AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
>> >> ballots
>>
>> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
>> > yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is
>> > inherently confusing.
>>
>> [ ] Choice 1: Foooo [ ] Choice 2: Baar
>>
>> Is inherently confusing? To whom? Are you personally confused? or
>> are you speculating?

> That is inherently confusing because you also have to use the
> numbers 1 and 2 for the rankings. Using the same set of options for
> two different things, where you could use two distinct sets of
> options for each different thing, is what is inherently confusing.

Actually, I used numbers for lots more things. I used numbers
to count money to pay for my coffee this morning. One dollar, Two
dollars. I, however, failed to get confused with the rankings for my
vote with the money I counted out.

>> Do we really want opinions from someone who is confused by Choice
>> N

> I knew this was going to come up Smile

Obviously all of us can
> understand the distinction between using numbers as rankings, and
> using numbers as designations, once it is explained. Point is, we
> shouldn't have to be explaining it when it can be done another, more
> straightforward way.

I find it pretty straigtforward to realize that numbers are
used in a myriad of different ways for a myriad of different things,
so I guess I am still not following. (I used numbers to stay withing
the speed limit posted on the highway, while using numbers to make
sure I made my appointment on time.

If people are finding Choice N prefixes unsurmountable
barriers to voting, we do have a serious problem. I don't think the
solution is to dumb down devotee.

manoj
--
We should start referring to processes which run in the background by
their correct technical name... paenguins. -- Kevin M. Bealer,
commenting on the penguin Linux logo
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta DeleteThis @debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Josip Rodin · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 82

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled
> >> >> ballots
> >>
> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters,
> >> > yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is
> >> > inherently confusing.
> >>
> >> [ ] Choice 1: Foooo [ ] Choice 2: Baar
> >>
> >> Is inherently confusing? To whom? Are you personally confused? or
> >> are you speculating?
>
> > That is inherently confusing because you also have to use the
> > numbers 1 and 2 for the rankings. Using the same set of options for
> > two different things, where you could use two distinct sets of
> > options for each different thing, is what is inherently confusing.
>
> Actually, I used numbers for lots more things. I used numbers
> to count money to pay for my coffee this morning. One dollar, Two
> dollars. I, however, failed to get confused with the rankings for my
> vote with the money I counted out.

Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several bills with
that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to them that you have to
know about, they simply have the names of the recipients.

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 678

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:08:45 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy.DeleteThis@entuzijast.net> said:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA
>> >> >> mangled ballots
>> >>
>> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some
>> >> > voters, yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that
>> >> > is inherently confusing.
>> >>
>> >> [ ] Choice 1: Foooo [ ] Choice 2: Baar
>> >>
>> >> Is inherently confusing? To whom? Are you personally confused?
>> >> or are you speculating?
>>
>> > That is inherently confusing because you also have to use the
>> > numbers 1 and 2 for the rankings. Using the same set of options
>> > for two different things, where you could use two distinct sets
>> > of options for each different thing, is what is inherently
>> > confusing.
>>
>> Actually, I used numbers for lots more things. I used numbers to
>> count money to pay for my coffee this morning. One dollar, Two
>> dollars. I, however, failed to get confused with the rankings for
>> my vote with the money I counted out.

> Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several
> bills with that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to them
> that you have to know about, they simply have the names of the
> recipients.

Thanks for proving my point. Every single one of those bills
have a serial number, which, like the Choice N string, is of little
interest to me. I, there fore, ignore it; and rarely get confused
about the amount of money I am handing over because of the serial
number.

The Mint, and the banks, and other behind the scenes entities
(like devotee), probably care a heck of a lot about the serial
numbers that we have grown used to ignoring.

quod erat demonstrandum.

manoj
--
"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." Vince Lombardi,
football coach
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta.DeleteThis@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 678

Hi,
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:08:45 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy.RemoveThis@entuzijast.net>
said:

> Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several
> bills with that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to them
> that you have to know about, they simply have the names of the
> recipients.

Actually, not only do every one of my bills have a number,
every single currency note I pay with _also_ have a serial number,
and the amount of every bill is a number, and a lot of bills have sub
parts, also numbers, denoting the bit the government siphons off,
some of which is tax deductible, for some of the bills.

I manage to still pay bills without getting confused by the
bill number, the dollar bills serial number, the bank account number,
the number of the PO box, the number used for the zip code, and
heavens. all kinds of little numbers positively wriggly around.

BTW, I think we have effectively exhausted this topic.

Or, in any case, I have said my say.

manoj
--
This login session: $13.99
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta.RemoveThis@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Josip Rodin · External Since: Aug 13, 2006 Posts: 82

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:46:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some
> >> >> > voters, yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that
> >> >> > is inherently confusing.
>
> > Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several
> > bills with that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to them
> > that you have to know about, they simply have the names of the
> > recipients.
>
> Thanks for proving my point. Every single one of those bills
> have a serial number, which, like the Choice N string, is of little
> interest to me. I, there fore, ignore it

Because you can do so easily - the designer of the note made sure to print
the value in a much larger font and made it stand out, while he put the
serial number somewhere peripheral and smaller where barely anyone notices.

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Manoj Srivastava · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 678

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:21:02 +0200, Josip Rodin <joy DeleteThis @entuzijast.net> said:

> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 02:46:23PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some
>> >> >> > voters, yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something
>> >> >> > that is inherently confusing.
>>
>> > Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several
>> > bills with that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to
>> > them that you have to know about, they simply have the names of
>> > the recipients.
>>
>> Thanks for proving my point. Every single one of those bills have
>> a serial number, which, like the Choice N string, is of little
>> interest to me. I, there fore, ignore it

> Because you can do so easily - the designer of the note made sure to
> print the value in a much larger font and made it stand out, while
> he put the serial number somewhere peripheral and smaller where
> barely anyone notices.

I would argue that the ballot has a similar clearcut
distinction: The ranking is the number the voter enters, the ordering
of the choices has the prefix "Choice", and actually precedes the
actual option.

manoj
--
One man's Mede is another man's Persian. George M. Cohan
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta DeleteThis @debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Sam Hocevar · External Since: Nov 28, 2004 Posts: 140

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> I would argue that the ballot has a similar clearcut
> distinction: The ranking is the number the voter enters, the ordering
> of the choices has the prefix "Choice", and actually precedes the
> actual option.

FYI, I was today congratulated for my honourable 4th place in the DPL
elections.

Cheers,
--
Sam.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

MJ Ray · External Since: Jun 02, 2005 Posts: 272

Sam Hocevar <sam DeleteThis @zoy.org> wrote:
> FYI, I was today congratulated for my honourable 4th place in the DPL
> elections.

And which news service did they read that on? Smile

--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org