[discuss] Re: What to do?

["Cthulhu's Little Helper" <skritch@home.com>]

On 28 June 1999, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:

>You just made a point thatis crucial, IMHO. We need a voting process, or
>atleast an opinion polling mechanism.
>Your pint, and Randy's, is to start on WG items. I disagree becasue the
>WG items are improperly ordered/listed. One of the WGs deals with
>process, this is IMHO improper. We should ALL work on process, it is the
>only path towards buy-in. Besides, it is a TONNE of work and the more
>hands the faster it gets done.

Mmm.  Ok.  Let's start here, since we have to start somewhere.

* We have a mailing list that will represent the GA (which mailing list
  is irrelevant right now).

* We need some way to quickly, accurately, and fairly poll the GA's
  opinion.

I see two major ways this can be done:

1)  The polling occurs via e-mail.  In this scenario, a mailing is sent
    either to the list, or to each individual participant of the list.
    I envision something like the maling list verification responses,
    where you are requested to reply with a particular string.  There's
    no reason why this couldn't be modified such that there are two
    response strings, one for yes, one for no, and the issue would be
    the top of the message body.

    Benefits:  Quick, easy, proven (at least for mailing list verification),
       automated (or could easily be), majority of code already exists, 
       could be run by anyone, not necessarily the current list maintainer.

    Drawbacks:  Still allows outside possibility of forgery, doesn't take
       into account mail delivery errors that could prevent receipt of 
       ballot or receipt of vote.

    Potential solution to drawback:  Announce votes on the list with a
       day or so lead time, so that those who haven't received their
       ballots within x hours or days know something's wrong, and provide
       adequate voting time to encompass possible mail system errors
       (e.g., several days).

2)  The polling occurs via website.  in this scenario, a website would
    be set up, and the URL announced, wherein some form of secure
    voting would take place, e.g., IDNO's current setup, or the other
    systems discussed on the IFWP list.

    Benefits:  Quick, easy, proven (in various instantiations), automated,
       could be run by anyone.

    Drawbacks:  Authentication seems to be a major issue, and we may need
       to spend money to obtain a decent package.  Additionally, there's
       a greater potential for abuse here.

    I won't go into more detail here, as this option has been pretty well
    hashed out already.


Comments?

-- 
 Mark C. Langston