RE: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

Though I expressed being in favour of a polling committee, albeit under
the responsibility of the panel, and I can see the urgency to making
this a part of the statute for this organization, I do wonder what is
expected of this new panel and in what amount of time, seeing that some
want only a panel for 3 months.

But that aside your posting comes back to a theme that can make or break
this organization.
What you are saying is that "every" decision taken by the new panel
"can" be overturned by the membership, something I can agree to
providing that there are enough safeguards to make this impossible for a
"relative small" group to accomplish.

I am in favour of polling the members, definitely, though we need to
structure rules for polling and the graduations of polling first, I said
that in an earlier post. But let's also face one or two facts of life:
we are electing an 11 member panel, by the looks of the current scores
on % of votes for #11. we are electing these people for a reason;
because we believe that such a new panel can organise us and lead us to
where we want to go. Now I did not emphasize "lead us" perhaps I should
have, but I do think that a panel with NO function whatsoever can just
as well not exist.
I do agree that in most cases the panel will propose to the membership
to endorse her actions, but certainly the initial election is an action
of endorsement as well.

Surely you can not be saying that 1 or even 20 members can decide to
overturn a decision? 
Surely you are not saying that daily official votes should be held to
confirm every decision the panel makes? The fact gathering and decision
process alone for "any" decision in that case can be 6 months or more!

I wholeheartedly agree with frequent polling, I wholeheartedly agree
with the right of the memebership to kick a panel out, even a specific
member, but all for good reasons and after serious debate and started on
the grounds that there is a likelyhood of success in overturning the
decision of kicking out the panel.

Setting minimum numbers of votes makes that a vote should be more then a
poll, which does not leave ot the option of a official vote after a poll
gives indication, but minimum numbers should be established in such
cases.

There is a balance in it all we surely need to find without wrecking the
organization before it is grown up.

Regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com] 
> Sent: 28 May 2003 18:20
> To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos; J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> Cc: Atlarge Discuss List; bruce@barelyadequate.info; Eric Dierker
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT
> 
> 
> I think the concerns you have been expressing, Sotiris, 
> reflect Joop's call for an electoral commission to oversee 
> further elections. I request that the whole membership is 
> polled shortly after these election results, to verify, 
> endorse, or re-define the outcomes of this election.
> 
> More importantly, I think this whole election should be 
> analysed as a "proof-of-concept" (!) to see where lessons 
> need to be learned. What would be unacceptable would be to 
> repeat the mistakes we made, and fail to learn from this 
> process. Joop's call for an Electoral Commission now seems 
> such transparent good sense that it should be acted on immediately.
> 
> As I have said in a separate post, it is imperative that we 
> establish a process (by polling I believe) to place decision 
> making and policy determination in the hands of the 
> membership. We saw last year how panel members pursued their 
> own agendas, regardless of the views expressed by members in polls.
> 
> >From the very outset we need to establish the constitutional primacy 
> >and
> superiority of the membership - to define mandates, mission, 
> objectives - and to insist that the panel carries them out. 
> The membership should have the power of veto, and the 
> membership should have the power to call for new elections.
> 
> We need to establish a process which authorises and empowers 
> the membership.
> 
> We need to face up to "bottom up" democracy and what it really means.
> 
> We are not ICANN.
> 
> We are trying to develop a democratic model for the net 
> governance of the future.
> 
> So we need an immediate membership review of this election; 
> an electoral commission to safeguard and develop processes 
> for future elections; and a constitution which implements 
> processes that will firmly place authority for 
> decision-making in the hands of the membership, not the panel.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Richard H
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> To: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
> Cc: Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>; 
> <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > To address some concerns of Sotiris Sotiropoulos who did not 
> > > understand what I explained several times (but that Mauro 
> > > understood), I will do it again. Maybe someone of High 
> Level English 
> > > Dialect will be so kind as to translate my Frenglish to 
> him? Thank 
> > > you.
> > >
> > > The votes are received on the atlarge@execlub.org mailing list. 
> > > There is an auto responder.
> > >
> > > This is a Mailman mailing list turned to remove mailnames.
> >
> >
> > Good, so it's open source... I'd like to inspect the code.  
> Please be 
> > so kind as to send the code for your "program" to the list 
> for all of 
> > us to inspect.
> >
> > > This list includes Eric and Bruce. We initially included the 
> > > watchdogs, but we discovered - and they protested - that the 
> > > anonymisation did not protected them against several practices of 
> > > the Members which disclosed their identity:
> >
> >
> > Do you mean to say that the watchdogs are NOT included?  If the 
> > watchdogs are not included, who is auditing the votes to ensure 
> > validity?  Who are the watchdogs, exactly?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 1. leaving the anti-spam mention of their name
> >
> >
> > What does this mean?  I have not understood what you mean by this 
> > "anti-spam mention of their name".
> >
> > >
> > > 2. copying the ballot to another of their mailbox before 
> voting: the 
> > > header of the transfer or their name being then plain in the text
> >
> >
> > This too is obscure... I still do not understand what you mean... 
> > copying the ballot to another mailbox?  Isn't that an indication of 
> > fraud?
> >
> > >
> > > 3. the Message-Id contains very often the name of the host
> >
> >
> > Why is this a problem?  Does it not help to guard against fraud?
> >
> > >
> > > 4. many responses came in HTML and were unreadable in ASCII...
> > >
> > > So I developed a program I only intended to develop on 
> Sunday next. 
> > > It strips from the text every information except the message-id 
> > > until the @, and keeps the ballot lines in the same 
> proper format. 
> > > Each ballot is numbered.
> >
> >
> >
> > I want to see the code for this program  ASAP!  I'm sure there are 
> > others who wish to see it as well.  Otherwise, I cannot accept your 
> > "program" as being 1) workable 2) fair.  Furthermore, if 
> nobody else 
> > has a problem with your mysterious software, then I am SURE nobody 
> > will have problem when Joop runs the election again, this 
> time using 
> > his Polling Booth.
> >
> > > The resulting file is sent to the Watchdogs on a daily basis.
> >
> >
> > For the tenth time, WHO are the watchdogs?
> >
> > > This file starts with the initial position of the main 
> Eudora file 
> > > and ends with the main Eudora file current position. This should 
> > > permit (if needed) to only send a file to the watchdogs with the 
> > > data of the day, while permitting them to check the continuity of 
> > > the data.
> >
> >
> > Who are the watchdogs?!  And your explanation of some 
> Eudora file with 
> > an initial and a current position is totally unclear, I do not 
> > understand.  Please send the code to the list so we can all inspect 
> > it.
> >
> > > Again Eric and Bruce have all the data by their own and 
> no relation 
> > > with me. They can easily check the file they receive against the 
> > > data they receive.
> >
> >
> > I want to know who the watchdogs are, never mind what Bruce 
> and Eric 
> > are receiveing.  I also want to see the code for the 
> program you say 
> > you've created, for all we know Bruce and Eric are 
> receiving whatever 
> > you want them to receive.
> >
> > > Each Polling Officer receives one copy, I receive 2 
> because I have a 
> > > second name for backup where I receive the ballot on a 
> daily basis. 
> > > There is also a third source of ballots: the return for a changed 
> > > e-mail or from an anti-spam system.
> >
> >
> > Produce the code for all of us to see.
> >
> > > Each received ballot is numbered. So any attempt to add/remove a 
> > > ballot would result in the change of the numbering. 
> Watchdogs would 
> > > be able to see that inconsistency immediately in comparing the 
> > > number of the last message in the previous day file and in the 
> > > current day file.
> >
> >
> > What file is that?  The Eudora file?  But, from what you 
> state above 
> > it's only you, Bruce and Eric who are receiving that file?  
> And, who 
> > are the watchdogs?!
> >
> > > I will not detail all the ways to go through the file and 
> detect a 
> > > possible tampering: anyone can think of many of them.
> >
> >
> > I cannot think of them, please do provide details.  In 
> fact, it would 
> > be easier if you just produced the code for us to inspect.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This file is accompanied with a file giving how many copies were 
> > > received per VID and if the vote occurred (non voted ballot are 
> > > obviusly retained but not considered). Only the first 
> voted ballot 
> > > counts.
> > >
> > > At the end of the vote, the whole watchodg file will be 
> put at the 
> > > disposal of the Members. It could be copied to them right 
> now, but 
> > > this would permit them to know the current status of the 
> vote, what 
> > > was not voted by the committee.
> >
> >
> > Not 6 sentences ago you said the watchdogs "would be able 
> to see that 
> > inconsistency immediately in comparing the number of the 
> last message 
> > in the previous day file and in the current day file", but 
> now you say 
> > that the watchdogs are NOT receiving somes-called "watchdog 
> file"...  
> > This makes no sense!  1) who are the watchdogs?  2) how are 
> they doing 
> > their
> job?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Problems we met:
> > > 1. the report of a few non-responses by the auto-responder. I 
> > > received a response when I tested after Sotiris reported the 
> > > problem. But I did not received one when I voted. I prefer not to 
> > > investigate and not to interfere in something which works to the 
> > > risk of blocking the list or losing the archives.
> >
> >
> > HOW CAN YOU SAY  IT WORKS PROPERLY IF IT'S NOT WORKING AS 
> PLANNED!?!?  
> > THIS IS TOTALLY LUDICROUS!!!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.the reported problem I reported above: that voters tend to 
> > > disclose their identity. In a DNSO vote this is not a  problem as 
> > > the watchdogs have been elected. In this vote where watchdogs are 
> > > self nominated the answer had to respect the rules and 
> procedures we 
> > > had set and announced. I note that I prefer myself self-nominated 
> > > watchdogs and strong rules: minorities can then be represented. 
> > > Sotiris could have decided to be a watchdog and would 
> have been one.
> >
> >
> > Who are the watchdogs and by what procedure are they doing 
> their job?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I will try to add an automated report today to inform the 
> Membership 
> > > on the situation of the vote.
> >
> >
> > Enough of your doubletalk, produce the code so we can all 
> verify the 
> > integrity of your "program".  I, for one, do not trust you, and I 
> > believe your "program" is non-existent!  Prove that we 
> ought to trust 
> > you by producing the code for all of us to inspect BEFORE 
> any results 
> > are announced!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Currently:
> > >
> > > 116 Members have voted.
> > > The candidate with the largest number of votes has 53 votes. The 
> > > 11th candidate has 33 votes The 27th candidate has 4 votes.
> > > Up to now Members have voted in average for 7 candidates 
> and answered
> > > 52 questions per ballot.
> >
> >
> > 52 questions per ballot?!  That's very interesting!!  
> Especially since 
> > there were only 17 questions on the ballot!!!!
> >
> > Until you produce the code for your "program" and detail who the 
> > watchdogs are and how they are doing their job, I consider this 
> > election dead in the water, and I will most likely withdraw my 
> > candidacy.
> >
> > --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >
> >
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 



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