[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] RE: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:43:51 -0800, you wrote:

>This is a general post regarding this thread:
>
>1.  First, I respect Vivek's choice, and the frustration that drove it, and
>I hope he stays actively involved.  However a general call for mass Panel
>resignations is not only uncalled for but irresponsible.  I've already
>discussed why this is at length in a previous post.  We need to move
>forward, not back to Square One!

See my next post.

>2.  IMO, the polling booth should be left on ICANNATLARGE.COM, under Joop's
>wise fosterage, and a link added to ICANNATLARGE.ORG to access it.  Members
>should be able to initiate polls in their own right, and we should set up
>rules to that effect.  Regular polls would be a valuable tool for gaguing
>concensus.  Votes, however, need to adhere to established rules.  But I see
>no reason not to set up a secure sign-in (which Joop likely already has!)
>for members who wish to vote online instead of through e-mail, and hold them
>via both e-mail and polling booth concurrently.  We should always encourage
>multiple means of communication.

I'm not sure that you can hold an election with both means at the same
time. The key in the e-mail ballot generation is that the ballot code
is generated on the fly when sending the e-mail, inserted into the
ballot, and then stored into a separate list - but the association
with the name of the voter is forgot. So you're not able to tell which
voters have voted and which have not, and when getting a pure Web vote
you wouldn't be able to tell whether the same voter has already voted
by e-mail.

What you could do is to have an e-mail system generating ballot codes,
and then these codes could be used either on the Web or by replying to
the e-mail. In any case, the system that receives the vote must be
sure to anonymize the ballot - in case of the e-mail, you delete the
headers (because they could allow you to see where the message came
from and perhaps identify the voter), but in case of the Web, you
should for example disable request logging in the server, not to trace
the voter's IP address.

>4.  "What's next" was a recurring theme.  Here's my thoughts:
>
>	-  Obviosly, we need to get a mission statement out as soon as possible.
>Some are asking to poll the membership for thought.  I believe we've seen
>many thoughts already on the subject, and already have the ifo we need to
>act.  

A week ago, or so, I posted a message saying: "I am about to let the
panel vote on mission statements." I got plenty of complaints saying
that we should go to the membership instead - this is why I didn't do
it. Given this week's discussion, I think it's better if we now vote
on whether we want to poll the membership on a set of simple questions
regarding the mission of the organization. If yes, we'll draft a list
of questions and the panel will vote on each of them to accept them
into the ballot. If not, the panel will vote on the mission statements
and proceed.
-- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de