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

[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] RE: (fwd) [atlarge-panel] draft motion on membership vote

I do not care bout the votng system practicalities. I care about:

1. a proper question preparation system adequate to who we really are and can make working

2. a polling culture. If we want the @large to be accepted as representative of the users we need them to be at least accepted as a significat market study panel by industry. To reach that level we have to accustom our members to be polled every month and respond. That way they will actually and really share in the true management of the network through technology, services etc.

3. I want a system people like and believe in. Exeperience with Joop's system is that to build a trust and interest into a new system takes years of controversy (I build one for the IDNO you may recall). Joop's booth is IMHO OK with the provisions that :

- it can be used both as a site for those liking it and as a mailing vote. This can be provided in the way Joop manages it: wending mails you can click. The problem is that polling needs HTML.
- Joop is NOT in charge but a committee of trustees elected by the Members as a service organized by Joop. I am very glad if Joop only acts as an organizer, not as a single polling officer.

I must say that I do NOT trust ANY specific polling system, specially in PHP for any other thing that a small group management. The reason why is that there are several functions in a vote.

1. the ballots.
- any program can generate athem for votes
- any simple HTML page can support a poll.

2. the sending: this is pure mailing list.

3. the collect. This should be a third party service. Only collecting the ballots and copying the resulting file to one or several polling officers. That collect should authenticate the voters (not necessarily as person but as not an alias).

4. the analysis. This should be carried again by a local GPL program to the polling officer machine. The result of the poll being accepted if every polling officer get the same report.

That analysis can also be produced as a third party report. I am working on such a cheap service on a proffesionnal way. Another problem is authentication.

jfc




On 06:53 24/01/03, bruce@barelyadequate.info said:

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

|  IMHO it is too complex a proposition. It calls for a lot of staff and
|  effort and it is far too much demaning on the members in term of
|  understanding of the ICAN situation.

That's why I included "or similar Web-based voting options."  My only
thought was to accomodate those that dislike e-mail voting and prefer a
Web-based interface.  But the vote itself is far more important than the
vehicle we use.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon USA
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!


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



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/01/03



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