Re: [atlarge-discuss] Poll watcher rights and duties

[Jan Siren <sirenj@earthlink.net>]

Stephen Waters wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 23:27, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > At 10:55 a.m. 9/04/2003, Stephen Waters wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 17:18, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In fact, I have already offered my help in assigning a random passcode to
> > > > each member, specific for this election.
> > > > I do not have to build a new system for that. It is ready and has been
> > > used
> > > > hundreds of times.
> > >
> > >But it's web-based, right?
> >
> > No, this part is not.
> > The Polling officer feeds the addresses into the system and it spits out an
> > email message to each member, each with its own unique alphanumeric passcode.
> >
> > This passcode can then be used either for web based voting or for email
> > based voting.
> > The only problem/feature  is that the system does not generate a *list* of
> > passwords, as such lists would be an inherent security risk.
> 
> That's sufficient for my concerns as long as Jan and Judyth are the ones
> looking after the election. Do you have the code available for download?
> 

Before things get out of hand here.

I can't speak for Judyth.  But I haven't been approached by Jefsey, Bruce nor 
Eric, individually or acting as a Panel, about "looking after the election." 
One possible scenario is that they would approach me with *their* 
requirements.  And I would respond with *my* requirements.  We would 
negotiate; and we might, or might not, reach an agreement.

No money would change hands in such a transaction, so what would be
negotiated would be intangibles, such as my reputation if the election turned 
out to be so poorly managed as to be botched.  A "hold-harmless" statement 
would obviously have to be part of the agreement.

Some of the discussion I've seen to date seems to imply that an election 
watcher has to be able to certify the Perl or C or DOS language code that 
supports the voting, and be able to run it on whatever computer he happens to 
own.  I'm not a programmer.  I don't trust programmers.  So let's get the 
election watcher requirements aligned with reality.

I have already pointed out that I'm not qualified to be a poll-watcher under
Joop's rules; half jokingly, I suggested that I felt released from my
obligation not to be a candidate.  However, an assessment of my disposable 
time, compared with my vision of what a Panelist *ought* to do, strongly 
overshadows *that* idea.  But I do feel qualified to robustly question anyone 
so audacious as to propose to be a candidate, or accept a nomination, with 
regard not only to his/her sincerity, but also the level of commitment the 
individual would bring to the job.

We've already had a round of Panelists who looked good on paper and look what 
that got us.


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