Re: Re: [ga] So far, 28 poll answers logged

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Kent,

You wrote:
>
>Yes, I have a votebot, and it works fine.  I'm surprised that Harald
>didn't use it.

I know you do have a votebot, that works fine.

The simple reason why I think a Web solution was more appropriate this 
time is the fact that:
- we did not need a high level of security, as this was just an opinion 
poll (as pointed out by Harald since the beginning), i.e. a tool for the
 Chairmanship (Chair+Alternate) to have a feeling of the opinion of the 
subset of the audience that cared to comment, even if this was opening 
up to the possibility of multiple votes;
- given the current climate on the list, it was *a good thing* to have 
the results available at the same Web site for people to check in real-
time how things were going. This will obviously not the case in a *real*
 vote, where you don't know what's going on until the votebot is closed 
- unless you rely on exit-polls ;>).

I hope that you will allow us to use it when time will come.

A couple of more comments below within your text.


>  It is fairly simple -- some authorized person prepares a
>ballot, and sends it to the votebot.  The votebot sends a copy of the 
>ballot to everyone on the list, with an individual authorization code.


"List" has to be understood in the abstract sense of "list of 
individuals eligible to vote", which does not necessarily correspond to 
one single DNSO Mailing List.
Also, the ballot has to be sent individually, not to a "list" or a 
"global name".
  
>They fill out the ballot and send it back to the votebot.  If it 
>doesn't have the authorization code it is rejected.  The votebot 
>tallies up the votes, and makes the results available.
>
>There are some provisions for setting up auditors and so on, and if you
 
>deal with it at that level it is a little more complicated.  But the 
>basic scheme is very simple, and fairly secure.
>


Indeed.

We discussed in the past about the auditors. This concept is, IMHO, 
essential.
We need to have a (small) set of people that have the general trust to 
check the regularity of the vote without necessarily making the 
individual vote public domain (I assume that we will have votes in which
 we specify that the individual vote will not be public).

Regards
Roberto