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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] Open call to join

At 05:13 01/01/03, Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 04:05 a.m. 1/01/2003, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
Joop, your polling booth has always been a pain because of the need to remember an ID/password.
This can be helped by making a "reminder" message w. login and PW obligatory for every Poll.
You know your system. The real thinhg is that me - as a voter :

1. get informed of all what I am supposed to vote or to respond (questionnaires)
2. get reminded if I did not vote
3. get things simple : just to click my mail to get on the voting page

Could you just not find a way to have the passwords in the URL, a maiol sent to the voters and the mail repeated several times so we could only click on the link, either to vote or to know the status of the vote.
That shouldn't be too difficult to do.
But we would have to be careful not to leave openings for technical abuse.
Since the mail is in my mail box, this is as mauch secure as for the DNSO polling.
You could may be change passwords on a per mail basis. So the pawword would not be the password of the person but of the voting windows. If the pasword was wrong (outdated or abuse) a new password would be sent to the user (restoring security). Abuse would result in several password beeing sent: the voter would be informed. To prevent DoS you could limit the number of pasword sent per day.

Also that all the running votes are displayed in the same page, to keep it simple.

I also suggest that you establish a "vote@large" organization under any cheap be serious law where at large voters could elect four other polling officers sharing your access to the boot data and certifying the votes.

My feeling is that the boot failed until now because you cannot really adapt it to practical experience and because you wanted to integrate it into a formal structure.
Yes. What I hoped was that the IDNO would prove the value of such an actually functioning integrated political representation system in a virtual meeting environment. The hope was that participating in the IDNO would produce actual representatives that could actually have some weight in the Names Council and so give a purpose to the whole effort.
I think it is a step too far for the tool. The way we perceive your polling booth is the "Joop's polling booth he tries to sell everywhere". This is positive because everyone identifies verywell the polling booth mission. The negative aspect comes from the idea that you want to propose more than just polling.

So let rephrase your marketing. We do not want to elect reps with a polling booth. We need a polling booth when we need to vote or to poll.

These needs may be for electing reps, voting by laws, etc.

The continual stonewalling by ICANN combined with the internal sabotage made it too discouraging to continue on that road. But now the www.idno.org website has been killed, the effort from the old site www.democracy.org.nz can always be revived
I would use a more sexy name. No problem with http://vote.atlarge.ws for atlarge.

As a stand alone formal and a neutral service it has chances to fly and develop. Is there no way for you to make what I call for three years : to get a programmer on it and to make it a real professional and possibly commercial poll and voting multi-lingual system?
This is a sensible suggestion and worth listening to.

will gladly help in this way too. Even imperfect as it is now, the Booth can fulfill a useful role in building icannatlarge.
Sure, if you can manage it the say I said. Actually we would need a system able :

1. to support the panel inner votes.
2. to support polls of the members opinion to the benefit of the community and of sponsors (we represent a competent significant market panel)
3. to support votes by the membership

There is no inherent conflict of interest between a commercial voting administrator and the principles of Democracy. Rather the contrary :-).

But you still need a unique Charter/Bylaws/Constitution for the Atlarge Network Hub that the icannatlarge.org should evolve into.
This is a different issue. We can have a
- NIC (atlarge.ws)
- voting system (yours)
- meetup support
- information site
without anything being formalized

Who do you trust to write it?
all of us, from the experience acquired from this. Let me know when the Insurgent wrote the US consititution, before the Tea Party or after?

Isn't Richard right to poll the "members" on the major Structure and Policy questions first?
Absolutely. This is why we need your polling booth. And your polling booth comes with the progam, the service (the way people perceive it ... and get accurstomed to it) and the trust.

This is why I would start in
- explaining what you want to do : offering a structured voting service
- put everything in place for the panel to use it (as a test)
- publish a voting/polling mechanism (the simplest) as a service (you do not decide about who runs the polls). You set up a rate and make it for free for the panel and for the @large Members with approval from the panel.
- call on a few trustees candidates.
- get three or fibe of them elected in using your polling booth.
- start marketing the system to pay for its cost

Maybe could you ask Jospeh if he would not be interested to team into this and to have a look at the software?

I could be interested to use it too if I could get it in French, as others might too in other languages. It is to be simple, extermely simple to use, to vote and to get reports from.

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