response 84 of 126:

Dec 1 17:15 UTC 1998

Does it depend upon *what* you know about them?

response 86 of 126:

Dec 1 21:02 UTC 1998

Hmmm...The "campaign statement" I had up was one that rolled over from
the last election two years ago.  Still mostly applied, but I've written
a new one now.

It's a hard list to choose from.  Maybe I'll skip voting for myself so I
can vote for more of the other good candidates.  I've met them all, so
that doesn't help at all.  (No wonder Valerie always gets elected -
she's met everyone).  

response 88 of 126:

Dec 2 11:35 UTC 1998

I interpreted your earlier remarks as a conditional acceptance, and your
name is on the ballot. I'll remove your name and notify members via
email of the ballot change. They can then revote if they wish. (Yet
another benefit of allowing folks to vote more than once!)

response 90 of 126:

Dec 2 16:48 UTC 1998

Thanks.

response 92 of 126:

Dec 2 19:12 UTC 1998

   If I had a problem with it, I'd squawk.

   I suppose, when that magical day occurs that we have so many staff
that they wander the hallways of Grex looking for something to do, that
we could have an election official.

   But I trust John implicitly.  I trust all the rootfolk here and I 
think that others do, too.

response 94 of 126:

Dec 2 22:06 UTC 1998

I have a question or two which I might like to put forth to the 
candidates.  Should I just start a new coop item for each question?
It would seem redundant for me to pose the question in each candidate's
campaign item, assuming they have one.
 
Or should there just be one free-for-all ask-the-candidates item?
 
I'm seeking a little guidance on structure here.

response 96 of 126:

Dec 3 00:18 UTC 1998

Re #91-93: The same thought (appropriateness of me being election czar
and simultaneously a candidate, at least from the point of view of
appearance) occurred to me. It's happened twice before though, and
nobody voiced any concerns, so I let it ride. From a practical point of
view, in terms of the security of the balloting, I don't think it makes
any difference who the election official is. The votes are stored
online, source to vote program is accessible to any staff member, and
any vote-tampering that I could do could also be done by any root. So it
all boils down to trusting the roots, regardless of who's officially "in
charge".

If there's a feeling of discomfort with the arrangment, though, I'd be
quite willing to step aside and let some other staffer take over.

Re resp:94 - I like the idea of one free-for-all ask-the-candidates
item. Whenever there's an election, I always like to put a pointer to a
discussion item on the ballot and in the motd, and that would give me an
item to point to. (I could put pointers to all candidates' statement
items, but that would bloat things a bit, I think.)

response 98 of 126:

Dec 3 12:15 UTC 1998

  Yes--it gets forwarded to her.

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?

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.

response 104 of 126:

Dec 4 21:45 UTC 1998

I didn't get it, either, and I had voted.

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.