response 83 of 186:

Nov 8 17:02 UTC 1996

Oh!  Now I understand why that discussion went the way it did.  I should go
dig it up again, to see if that point was ever discussed.  If people were
using different unwritten assumptions, it explains a lot.

response 85 of 186:

Nov 8 23:06 UTC 1996

I agree that a not so unwritten policy is probably in order here.  How do we
do it?  Is a declaration by scott enough?  A board vote?  A membership vote?
An amendment to the by-laws?  I'd say either of the first two.

response 87 of 186:

Nov 9 12:52 UTC 1996

So someone make a first pass at wording something.  (I'd say that wording's
going to be a bit tricky on this one, so maybe we should bat that around
before officially making a proposal.  When (if) we get to the proposal, I'd
like to see it have its own item, with reference back to the discussion here.)

response 89 of 186:

Nov 9 22:25 UTC 1996

Of course.  What I was suggesting was a bit more batting around before the
item.

response 91 of 186:

Nov 13 01:19 UTC 1996

I hope you all realize that our current ID-collecting methods are completely
inadequate for telling that two accounts are in fact held by separate humans.
Even if this proposal comes to fruition, we are *still* 100% dependent on the
good faith of the membership in following the rule.  The only thing it might
accomplish is that a person wishing to buy an election would have to be a bit
sly about it (borrow friends' ids, and such).  And are we really going to
require that two accounts have different id information?  Then parents and
children, husbands and wives will have to do more that just write us checks
on a joint account.  It's not a huge burden, I suppose, but it's an
impediment.  And I really don't see what it will accomplish.

response 93 of 186:

Nov 15 17:40 UTC 1996

Minor nit: I'm under the impression that Kami votes only once, and that
convocat doesn't vote.  They're both *eligible* to vote, though.

response 95 of 186:

Nov 16 14:38 UTC 1996

Re #92:  Steve, if you want it to be clear what the treasurer should enforce,
then we ought to have at least a board resolution about it.

response 97 of 186:

Nov 17 15:37 UTC 1996

Steve, maybe you've mentioned already what rules you would like to see
enacted to resolve this problem but I don't recall your offering such
specifics.  So far I know you'd like Board action, a one vote per member
rule "enforced", recognition of a membership class with voting right, and
the treasurer to do the enforcing. 

And this is going to be discussed (and possibly voted on at Wednesday's
Board meeting). 

Would you mind slowing down a bit and presenting a full proposal here
including answers to a few questions?  Like, what kind of identification
are you going to require to make a policy work?  How are you going to
enforce it?  When we start expanding the definition of membership wouldn't
it be a good idea to change the Bylaws?  Who will do the voting for a
membership account and how will we enforce that? How are we going to
determine exactly who is doing *any* voting once we decide going by an
honor system isn't good enough?  What will the punishment be for someone
who violates voting rules? 

This should all be discussed, here, online, before anything gets decided
by the Board. 

response 99 of 186:

Nov 17 19:41 UTC 1996

Absolutely, it needs to be spelled out, what our policy is with regard to
requiring IDs from our members.  It is one thing to have a rule that no one
may vote more than once, and quite another to enforce it by
requiring verification that the rule is being adhered to.  I repeat, our
current system is not up to that task.  It is designed to have a way to track
down people who do something bad, not to be able to prove that a person is
who he says he is, or to prove that two logins actually belong to different
people.  I'm afraid that if we push this thing far enough, the result may be
that we find that to have a secure voting system, we can't vote on-line at
all.

And I think that would be bad, if we got so worked up over the possibility
that someone might vote twice that we made it harder for *everyone* to be a
member and vote.

I think we shouldn't get into the business of trying to verify that people
are who they say they are, but instead simply have a rule that no one may own
two memberships.  Of course, someone can break that rule if they try.  But
face up to it, folks, *Grex is dependent on the good will of its members*.
And it always will be, I hope.  If we don't treat the membership with trust
and respect, why should they support us?

For God's sake, this is not a commercial enterprise.  It's not like there's
a lot at stake; like some fortune hunter might decide to take over Grex
because it would be worth a lot of money to him.  This is a non-profit club;
why would anyone want to do an underhanded takeover of it?

That still leaves the problem of the convocat membership.  I'm not sure what
to do about it; but having a non-voting organizational-membership class seems
like a reasonable solution to me.

response 101 of 186:

Nov 18 06:40 UTC 1996

I agree with Mark.

response 103 of 186:

Nov 18 11:49 UTC 1996

So if, say, I write a check for $12 (or $120) and tell Mark that half is for
a membership for me & half for Grace, it couldn't be accepted?  It's the same
ID, after all ... but it *does* have both our names on it.

response 105 of 186:

Nov 18 18:22 UTC 1996

In Dave's example, I would think it should count as IDs for both them, 
since both names are there on the check. I see no problem if Mark 
accepts that ID for both.

Valerie's example is more troubling. While I agree that it would be nice
 to accept memberships for children based on the parent's ID, one
wonders  how to decide and how many children to believe are there. It
wouldn't be  a big deal to ask for a modicum of evidence that the
children exist.

I don't have the answer folks. I am not so much crusading to change 
things as I am trying to point out how we are being inconsistent, and 
how badly we need a policy.

Would you suggest that if a person said they wanted to pay for 
memberhips for Husband wife and each of 10 children, that we should take
 the money and let them all vote without any assurance that these 
children exist? The answer I am hearing from many is "Yes, we trust them
 on this, no matter how many children they claim." In that case I would 
still like to talk about this at the board meeting, if only to be sure 
that the majority of the board agrees with this policy.

Personally, I believe that at some point you have to stop trusting. If 
this is so, we are placing this entire onus on the treasurer, and he 
isn't going to do it. It isn't fair to ask him to.

response 107 of 186:

Nov 19 03:36 UTC 1996

If someone wanted to cheat on the voting process do you really 
think we could stop them?  If someone was bound and determined
to show ID for ten kids they would and could do it.

Rule one about rules:  don't make 'em if you are willing to
enforce 'em.  Exactly how would you suggest we enforce this
one, Steve?  

Keep it easy for folks to be members, expect they'll take care of the
system, and only address real problems.  Right now we may have a problem
with some folks misunderstanding they only get one vote.  Why not
communicate that a little better and then see how it goes before getting
into a tangle of rules and enforcement procedures? 

It would be highly inappropriate for any new policies or enforcement
procedures to go to a Board vote on Wednesday (regarding this issue). 
*Specifics* should be put forth and discussed here first with the Board
members voicing their opinions and the users having a chance to critique
any proposed policies.