[CAVO] Open Source for use in public elections

Thu Apr 16 19:58:20 UTC 2015

Hi Tim,

Thank you for that great introduction, coupled with a little trepidation. Will it help if I say you responded perfectly!

"Reply-all" is set to reply only to the list. Let me know if that works differently on your email client.

(I copy myself on all my sent email, but there is no need to send me or any other list participant copies. The cavo@ list takes care of that for us, including archiving it all for your renewed future enjoyment.) 

Tim apologizes in advance for any etiquette breach he will make in the future. Me too. Now let's move on. Take advantage of the fact that everything we say on this list is archived and think twice before saying anything offensive, and count to ten before complaining about something offensive said by others. Remember the Chatham House Rule. We're all part of a community. It may be too early to say so, but pretend we're all friends.

I personally find this challenge toward semi-public speaking in open source email communities to be a maturing experience. Some people, unfortunately, never learn to behave. Please keep your complaints on-list, and ask one of the list moderators (Brian and me and Patrick, so far) to remove anyone particularly spamming. We moderators have great powers that we hate to use! :-)

I've agreed with Brent to try to set up other smaller lists here, such as for technical activities. But quite frankly, we're a small enough group so far that breaking into subcommittees will make us too lonely. So talk here. 

/Larry

From: Tim Mayer [mailto:timbmayer at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 12:25 PM
To: Lawrence Rosen; CAVO
Subject: Re: [CAVO] Open Source for use in public elections

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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <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 <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com> >
Date: Wed, April 15, 2015 11:46 am
To: <cavo at opensource.org <mailto: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 <mailto:CAVO at opensource.org> 
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cavo

_______________________________________________
CAVO mailing list
CAVO at opensource.org <mailto: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/ba9b23c0/attachment.html>