[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" <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).
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
> 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.
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.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208