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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jan and all fellow members,

Jan Siren wrote:

> 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."

  I suspected as much.  Jefsey is simply providing false information again.
How sad...  :(

>
> 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.

  You are not in a legal position to negotiate anything with respect to
Members data or the membership list at this juncture, unless you wish
also to be in some near future legal trouble.  BTW, neither are Judyth,
Jefsey, Eric or Bruce.

>
>
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
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