Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jason Flatt <jflatt AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] voting process
  • Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:28:20 -0800

On Friday 10 February 2006 07:12 am, David Kowis wrote:
> Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > On Feb 10, Andrew ruskie Levstik [ruskie AT mages.ath.cx] wrote:
> >>> As long as we keep the auditing process simple while maintaining
> >>> anonymity I think that would be fine.
> >>
> >> An amendment to the auditing proccess...
> >> Once the tally is done and posted to the ML ppl respond to it with
> >> Yes my vote is properly counted or no mine isn't.
> >
> > Requiring this seems much to me, do people really think we need to go
> > that far?
>
> I don't think so. I think if someone's vote is misrepresented, then
> they'll make it known. I don't think we need everyone to confirm it.

I agree. I suspect, even if it were made a mandatory part of the voting
process, that most folks will not even bother responding (due to lack of time
or interest or whatever), if their vote is correctly represented and the
count is accurate.

And if it were a mandatory part of the process, how would you enforce it?
The
votes been taken, the count is done, the results were posted, n won, now
everyone let me know that your vote was correctly represented. Why should I?

Or else, what?

--
Jason Flatt
Source Mage GNU/Linux: Linux so advanced, it may as well be magic.
http://www.sourcemage.org/

Attachment: pgp_JiYfW5HTB.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page