[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[discuss] Re: What to do?
On 28 June 1999, "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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.
Mark C. Langston