[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [discuss] Re: What to do?

Mark and all,

  This is as good a place as any to start.  I hope that someone on the
NC/PNC is taking these note this time as over 6 months ago
I outlined a procedure for just this sort of thing that we do internally
with INEGroup members that number over 95k presently.

  Now my comments in less detail than 6 months ago are inline with
yours here Mark. (See below)

Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:

> 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).

  This is difficult to determine.  The most populated list is the IFWP
list.  However Javier Sola is strongly against using that list.  Not that
this should be a show stopper...  If I had to vote I would vote for  in
favor for the IFWP list.

> * 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?

  Of your two suggestions I would vote for #2.  The reasons are
simple and Joop I believe yesterday pointed them out clearly.
The one correction or enhancement I would make is that
a neutral party audit each voting/polling situation.  I would recommend
that to do that that we use the USG to do that.  I checked on doing
this some 6 months ago now, and they are willing to assist here....

> --
>  Mark C. Langston


Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208