[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] In defense of Watchdogs
Joanna and all fellow members,
Abel seems to be wanting wishful thinking to guide his public comments
and remarks rather than reality. You are of course right Joanna, and
such misinformation that Able in this instance seems to believe is based
not on historical fact, but some other unknown motivation or reason.
Joanna Lane wrote:
> > From: Abel Wisman [mailto:abel@able-towers.com]
> > What happened to my understanding is that every name got a number, those
> > numbers are returned and checked without the watchdogs knowing what
> > number is what name, which is the same method used previously.
> >
> > Abel
>
> No it isn't. Without wishing to dwell on this matter unnecessarily, (and
> this is my final post on this topic), the Watchdogs have always been
> provided exact copies of original ballots, including identifying names,
> numbers and email addresses. Typically, there would be 4 or 5 of them in
> addition to the Secretariat, which itself would be one or two persons, in
> addition to an 18 member Council that organized the Election and signed off
> on all the documentation issued both before and after the election,
> including rules, schedule and so on. In total, about 25 people for the 1,000
> member organization. Compare that number with the 3 election "officials" we
> have here, each of whom has already complained about heavy commitments
> elsewhere that are limiting the time they have to give to this election.
>
> As has been noted previously, there are checks and balances missing as a
> result. One example would be the lack of return acknowledgements for the
> sender to know his/her ballot has been received. The Polling Committee is
> wearing so many hats it can't cope, they just don't have the time. Could
> they have asked one or more of the Watchdogs to undertake this role? Of
> course they could. Why didn't they? Beats me. What do we do if our ballot is
> missing from the final list? Can we resubmit at that stage and ask for it to
> be counted?
>
> Historically, the Secretariat would also refer to Watchdogs about decisions
> over borderline ballots, or missing ballots, or other circumstances that may
> arise. For example, a candidate withdraws in the middle of the vote and
> members who have only cast one vote for that particular candidate
> immediately request the election is stopped and restarted. What do you do?
> Well the Council (aka Polling Committee) debates the dilemma without any
> knowledge of how their decision could influence the vote. They make a
> recommendation and refer it to the Watchdogs (aka Polling Committee) for
> validation, the watchdogs having copies of the ballots, so they can review
> whether or not there would be an adverse impact by taking the course of
> action being recommended by the Council, including talking to the candidates
> individually, checking the pre-published rules and so on. The Watchdogs have
> a range of choices, including stopping the election and starting over,
> instructing the Secretariat (aka The Polling Committee) to reissue the
> ballots and extend the election by 2 or 3 days, changing the rules so that
> the last ballot received from each member is counted. You see, Watchdogs
> have always been trusted members of the community appointed by elected
> officials, of equal or greater stature to the candidates, who are the
> ultimate authority in the election. This is a far cry from the picture being
> painted by this Polling Committee of Watchdogs.
>
> Nevertheless, this Polling Committee saw fit to exclude volunteers who have
> previously held this level of responsibility and trust, who had stepped
> forward out of the goodness of their heart to assist with a heavy burden on
> what they perceived to be a very small and relatively inexperienced team -
> and what did they get for it? Their reputations trashed! And for what? So
> that 3 people can work 24/7 with no backup? So that egos can be crushed? So
> that lawsuits can fly?
>
> Wouldn't it have been easier just to make the whole thing *more inclusive*,
> not less inclusive?
>
> Remember this the next time you hear complaints about heavy workload.
>
> Have a great weekend.
>
> Joanna
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Walter Schmidt [mailto:walts@dorsai.org]
> > > Sent: 31 May 2003 14:32
> > > To: Atlarge Discuss List
> > > Cc: Walter Schmidt
> > > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Watchdog members (fwd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ...oops, incorrectly addressed, my fault, sorry
> > >
> > > --- REgards, walts
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:00:15 -0400 (EDT)
> > > From: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
> > > To: Bruce Young <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
> > > Cc: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
> > > Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Watchdog members
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 30 May 2003 bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joanna Lane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > | I believe one of the mistakes being made in this election, is not
> > > > | forwarding the ballots in their raw state to, Watchdogs instead
> > > > | stripping them of any ID.
> > > >
> > > > The ID is not stripped, only the name. The voter's unique
> > > Voter ID is
> > > > being preserved, and that is what the watchdogs are cueing on to
> > > > detect duplicates. There is no need for them to know the
> > > name. All
> > > > they need to know is Voter ID to ensure it's a unique vote. This
> > > > preserves the anonymity of the voter, while ensuring the
> > > uniqueness of
> > > > the votes.
> > >
> > > ...I do not think so - with a name, it can be checked
> > > against a roster, with an anonymous number, yes, you can
> > > ensure it is unique, but you do not know if it is a valid
> > > members vote, or something else...without actual member
> > > identity, uniqueness does not ensure validity.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > --- REgards, walts@dorsai.org Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA
> > > Blue(^) ---
> > > - - Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Media Center Edition - HPMC
> > > 873n ---
> > > - - Associate Expert - Expert Zone
> > > - -
> > > --- http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > > ---
> > > - -
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/schmidt/
> > ---
> > - - 52 Ken http://www.dorsai.org/~walts/ Sun 57 - -
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de