[CAVO] Open Source for use in public elections

[Tim Mayer]

So, I must admit that I am a novice regarding this particular email tool.
For instance, I was not certain whether to 'Reply All', or just 'Reply',
because I was not certain of the distinction.

Technical issues aside, I thought it might be appropriate here to deliver a
message regarding my personal views surrounding open communication
generally, as well as my thoughts regarding this project.

Generally, I prefer, if I am unusually patient or thoughtful, to only say
those things that I would have no hesitation publishing. I find that if I
consider my thoughts and feelings only, I might say or do anything. But, if
I consider to whom I am speaking, I might be more patient and thoughtful
about my utterances or actions.

More disturbingly, I find that I am particularly more candid, okay direct
to the point of cruelty, the better I know the person to whom I am
speaking. And so, I might not be so patient and thoughtful, if I know you
quite well.

And therein lies the private versus public communication dichotomy for me.
Indeed, I wish for those closest to me to know exactly how I feel
viscerally, and at any given moment, not for any clarity, but rather for my
own selfish reasons, reasonable or not. That defines my private
communications, for better or for worse. But in my public communications,
indeed wherein I am speaking to those with whom I am not as familiar, I am
much more circumspect regarding my views on any particular matter. Not
because I wish to deceive the listener, but rather I prefer to have my
message heard rather than discarded summarily.

So, what are private or secret meetings for? Letting go of restraint and
thoughtfulness? Unbridled free thought? Just saying what one feels without
consideration of an other? Perhaps such an environment is necessary from
time to time, that is, to just let oneself go. Regeneration from compassion
fatigue.

So, my concern, with respect to the private/public issue of our
communications regarding CAVO, comes down to one question: Is our policy
regarding this issue advancing the cause of the voter or not?

I believe that if we were to air our dirty laundry, so to speak, in every
detail, i.e., refrain from patience and thoughtfulness and then publish
that outcome in every instance, may be doing a disservice to the voter.
Because, I believe, that at times, thoughtfulness and patience is not
always exhibited, and therefore things may be written that are regrettable
and indeed reflect negatively on our efforts. We do not want to have our
work dismissed summarily.

That being said, I like the notion of being thoughtful and patient every
time I wish to convey a thought to another, in our CAVO organization in
particular. And, I believe that the voter would appreciate the fruits of an
open and honest dialog regarding our efforts to develop an *open* source
system on their behalf.

Additionally, private emails regarding any CAVO developments probably
impede the speed and efficiency of communication, particularly in the
beginning, requiring more meetings of our group for updates.

I will, for my part, use the group tool for all my communications regarding
CAVO, and would encourage all the members to do the same...that is assuming
I am even doing correctly right now...

Thank you,

Tim Mayer

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> David is correct below. Proper etiquette on such online lists is sometimes
> a difficult skill learned over time. I fail at it too often, sometimes by
> being too brusque or critical in front of too many people at once.
>
>
>
> The formal rule I personally like everyone to follow is at
> http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule.
>
>
>
> Apache projects have both public lists (like cavo@) and smaller private
> lists where only some folks ("members") can participate. It is a continual
> battle to force Apache project teams to stop using private lists for
> anything other than management-related, contractual or legal issues. Even
> Apache open source project team elections are held on public lists. :-) All
> lists are archived.
>
>
>
> Thanks again to opensource.org for making this resource available to
> CAVO. We will slowly convert our CAVO participants to use it comfortably
> and politely.
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david at drrw.info]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2015 9:07 AM
> *To:* CAVO
> *Subject:* Re: [CAVO] Open Source for use in public elections
>
>
>
> Larry,
>
>
>
> Understood.  However - private email is that - unless the person so
> indicates that you may distribute their correspondence.
>
>
>
> I certainly take affront when someone sends me an obviously targeted email
> and then Cc:'s a public mailing list - or the reverse - what was clearly a
> private note for someone's personal edification - then being forwarded
> publicly.
>
>
>
> Everyone can use their judgement as to what is appropriate.
>
>
>
> Having said that - I get the overall point - this is a collaboration
> service - and the more we share information - the better in terms of
> facilitating the overall work and achieving the broader objectives.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CAVO] Open Source for use in public elections
> From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>
> Date: Wed, April 15, 2015 11:46 am
> To: <cavo at opensource.org>
>
> [I'm moving this email to cavo@]
>
>
>
> David Webber wrote:
> > Clearly when dealing with external entities - it is certainly not good
> business practice to Cc: a mailing list!
>
>
>
> Not so clearly.... Several states including California have open meetings
> laws relating to public government-related activities. Elections and voting
> systems are certainly that!
>
>
>
> I'm sensitive to "political sensitivity" only in the context of open
> source software development. And quite frankly, having listened to some of
> these CAVO discussions over the past several months, it was the private
> parts that burned me up the most as being unnecessarily confidential and
> thus useless to the rest of us!
>
>
>
> Let's learn to be open! Or at least, let's talk to each other openly about
> what it really means to be open source. That's why I'm here. What are you
> here for?
>
>
>
> /Larry
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CAVO mailing list
> CAVO at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/cavo_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20150416/2871dfe7/attachment.html>