Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Voting process amendment

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: SM Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Voting process amendment
  • Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 12:53:44 -0600

On Jan 04, Sergey A. Lipnevich [sergey AT sourcemage.org] wrote:
> I'd say we only attempt to verify a vote if there's a doubt or a request
> to do it. That is, the vote is counted if it's received by the lead who
> does the counting. When the list is published for everyone to see,
> interested party(ies) can object and/or ask for verification.

And if someone didn't sign their vote, and verification is requested, what
does that mean? They have to vote again, and sign it the second time?
And what would then be the time limitation on people being able to ask for
verification? We would be unable to verify votes on request if the person
who cast an unsigned vote couldn't be located to verify it.

> Additionally, I'd propose using a Drupal plug-in (if available, or some
> re-purposed polls plug-in) and giving developers access to an online
> voting form. This process would be much easier to manage than email
> (e.g. my vote wouldn't have been lost because of the email being
> apparently lost in transit), and would be authenticated by Drupal.

This would definitely require SSL protection on at least that part of the
drupal site. Since we can't afford a verisign cert, that also means all
developers would need to allow a 3rd party cert or CA on their browsers,
with appropriate verification.

> Sergey.
>
> Eric Sandall wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Sergey A. Lipnevich wrote:
> >
> >> I object because I'm not planning on getting GPG key anytime soon. If I
> >> needed it for other things I would get it, but having it only for SMGL
> >> election is kind of too much too ask. If everyone else feels different,
> >> I'm willing to reconsider.
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> > How else do you propose we verify the sender is who they are? Not that
> > our elections are world shaking, but I would like to have some modicum
> > of authenticity to show I am recording the correct vote for the
> > correct person. ;)

Attachment: pgpLPdn5K9V6W.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page