|
Grex > Coop11 > #38: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 126 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 100 of 126:
| 
Dec 3 18:13 UTC 1998 |
Yes, if you go there, you might never get out.
Hm, I voted and so got a copy of my own message. I wonder if the problem
was that my script invoked sendmail directly in a tight loop. Does
sendmail have some anti-spam measure in place that rejects rapid-fire
mail from the same address to a bunch of different users?
|
steve
|
|
response 101 of 126:
|
Dec 3 19:41 UTC 1998 |
Excellent question. Marcus will know. ;-)
|
remmers
|
|
response 102 of 126:
|
Dec 3 20:44 UTC 1998 |
In any case, I think I'll resend the mail by a different method, as my
first method seems not to have worked.
|
scg
|
|
response 103 of 126:
|
Dec 3 23:59 UTC 1998 |
I didn't get the mail either, and I had already voted.
|
jep
|
|
response 104 of 126:
|
Dec 4 21:45 UTC 1998 |
I didn't get it, either, and I had voted.
|
mdw
|
|
response 105 of 126:
|
Dec 4 23:12 UTC 1998 |
Sendmail doesn't (yet) have anything to look for people sending lots of
mail from grex. It's something we'll probably need to add someday.
|
davel
|
|
response 106 of 126:
|
Dec 5 13:04 UTC 1998 |
I also had voted when Colleen was a candidate, & didn't get John's mail.
I have no problem with John's running the election. If we're going to trust
people with root, they have the ability to diddle the voting whoever actually
runs the election. My experience also indicates that John seeks out someone
else to verify the actual count.
|
remmers
|
|
response 107 of 126:
|
Dec 5 14:24 UTC 1998 |
Yes, I've done that in several elections, and certainly every one
in which I've been a candidate. I think it should be done. Dave,
are you willing to be vote count verifier, and are other folks
comfortable with Dave doing that. If so, I'll give you the
necessary access permissions.
|
remmers
|
|
response 108 of 126:
|
Dec 5 14:30 UTC 1998 |
(And re possible vote-diddling: There are safeguards in the program
that would detect various kinds of vote tampering. I'd prefer not
to say what they are. However, they're not 100% foolproof, and a
knowledgeable programmer with root access and access to the source
code could probably figure out ways around them. And as previously
pointed out, Grex staff has access to the source.)
|
mta
|
|
response 109 of 126:
|
Dec 5 16:29 UTC 1998 |
I'd be very comfortable with dave verifying the results.
|
steve
|
|
response 110 of 126:
|
Dec 5 18:19 UTC 1998 |
I feel the same way.
|
dpc
|
|
response 111 of 126:
|
Dec 5 20:00 UTC 1998 |
Me, too.
|
aruba
|
|
response 112 of 126:
|
Dec 5 20:44 UTC 1998 |
I think davel is a good choice.
|
valerie
|
|
response 113 of 126:
|
Dec 6 16:42 UTC 1998 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 114 of 126:
|
Dec 6 18:19 UTC 1998 |
Ditto davel. Ditto no mail.
|
remmers
|
|
response 115 of 126:
|
Dec 6 21:54 UTC 1998 |
Gack! I'll send it again. (I wonder if I did something as stupid
as writing the script but forgetting to run it after testing...)
|
davel
|
|
response 116 of 126:
|
Dec 7 05:20 UTC 1998 |
Heh. Of course, no one else in the world would ever do something like that,
John.
Um, I didn't volunteer for the vote-counter position. However, it's no big
job; I'm honored by all those expressions of trust. Exactly when is it that
the voting ends? If the timing isn't too inconvenient, I would be willing
to do it. (It would have to wait until I arise; I won't wait up until some
midnight just to count votes.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 117 of 126:
|
Dec 7 10:06 UTC 1998 |
Of course you didn't volunteer - I volunteered you. :) Thanks for
your willingness to do it.
Voting ends on December 15. That's next Sunday. As far as I'm concerned,
counting the votes as soon as it's convenient for you the following day
is okay.
|
remmers
|
|
response 118 of 126:
|
Dec 7 11:40 UTC 1998 |
I've resent the mail about cmcgee's withdrawal. I believe it worked
this time. (Because of a typo in the script, which I didn't catch
the first time, it ended up sending the same message 34 times to
the first person on the list, rather than sending the message to
34 people as intended. Sigh...)
|
steve
|
|
response 119 of 126:
|
Dec 7 15:17 UTC 1998 |
...And they didn't *tell* you? Users! ... ;-)
|
remmers
|
|
response 120 of 126:
|
Dec 7 19:14 UTC 1998 |
The affected user hasn't logged in for a few days and might
not be aware. When he looks at his rather voluminous mailbox,
he'll find a note of apology from me...
|
dpc
|
|
response 121 of 126:
|
Dec 9 15:52 UTC 1998 |
I got the mail, John. And just one copy, too! 8-)
|
davel
|
|
response 122 of 126:
|
Dec 10 03:58 UTC 1998 |
I also got exactly one copy.
Way back in #117 John wrote:
> Voting ends on December 15. That's next Sunday. As far as I'm concerned,
> counting the votes as soon as it's convenient for you the following day
> is okay.
Unless I'm much mistaken, December 15 is a Tuesday. (And I'm presuming
that voting ends at the *end* of December 15, local Grex midnight; is
that correct? (Or is it Sunday Dec. 13, by chance?))
|
remmers
|
|
response 123 of 126:
|
Dec 10 11:57 UTC 1998 |
It's December 15, end of the day, local time. You're right, that's a
Tuesday. Sorry 'bout that.
|
jep
|
|
response 124 of 126:
|
Dec 10 14:20 UTC 1998 |
I just got my copy. I forward my e-mail to M-Net because I telnet in
over there, and Backtalk in to here. The message was dated December 7,
so it took only 3 days for an e-mail message to be delivered some
several blocks. Heh.
|