RE: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

You know, from my statements, that I am actually in favor of the idea. But,
it will take some time to develop the code, the procedures, and the
mechanisms. What I meant by infeasibility is that it cannot be done, at this
time. There are a LOT of details regarding eVoting, all of them deal with
authentication. You know for fact, that I can send, at the next moment, an
email that 95% of this audience will swear originates from you. Many of us
watched Joe Baptista do it in the GA. I imagine that you could probably do
it yourself. I know about a dozen ways to fix that problem, but they ALL
need political acceptance.

It is infeasible, at this time, and in this time-frame. It is a decidedly
non-trivial issue.

> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:37 PM
> 
> 1/26/01 7:45:18 PM, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
> 
> >That is a rat-hole. Sotriris, you know that this is 
> technically infeasible.
> >Derek may be ignorant, but you're not.
> 
> Roeland,
> 
> Thank you for the compliment.  However, I personally do not 
> feel it's "technically infeasible".  I happen to be of the 
> opinion that technology is at the disposal of human beings 
> and not the other way round.  If another member of this 
> WG expresses an opinion, which I find agreeable to my own 
> ideas, I will not balk at the "technical infeasibility" of 
> the idea.  There are plenty of things in human history and 
> Being which were once considered "technically 
> infeasible", yet today we have lightbulbs. (thanks namely to 
> Thomas Edison: A Truly Great American)
> 
> Amiably,
> 
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:41 PM
> >> To: Derek Conant; Greg Burton
> >> Cc: wg Review list
> >> Subject: Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] 
> >> Discussion
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 1/26/01 4:54:57 PM, Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >If the WG is going to use votes for its direction, voters 
> >> should be identified so
> >> >that WG contributing participants know that the votes and 
> >> voters are legitimate.
> >> 
> >> I fully concur and second this motion (that is, if it is one!?!).
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>           Hermes Network, Inc. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> --
> >> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> >> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> >> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >> 
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc. 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html