|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 184:
| 
Dec 6 11:23 UTC 1994 |
Perhaps I should clarify. The votes aren't publicly readable,
but a person with root access *could* look at them. Of course,
they shouldn't -- any more that a root should read mail, even
though he or she could.
There are measures taken in the vote program and the way voting
is administered to guard against vote tampering.
|
tsty
|
|
response 26 of 184:
|
Dec 7 22:17 UTC 1994 |
maybe I should clarify also - and this has NOTHING to do
with root access messing anything up - that is not even
in the picture - the question was whether or not it is
possible to determine who voted for whom, or for what,
by specific identification linking any specific voter
to any specific vote.
|
remmers
|
|
response 27 of 184:
|
Dec 7 22:46 UTC 1994 |
Someone with root access could determine who voted for whom.
|
remmers
|
|
response 28 of 184:
|
Dec 8 01:24 UTC 1994 |
Election update: Since I don't have the 'turnout' command working,
I'll report on the number of ballots cast so far:
According to the list of eligible voters in the /etc/group file,
there are 82 eligible voters. Of these, 27 have cast ballots.
According to the bylaws, 2/3 of the eligible voters must vote in
order for the election to be valid. So we are 28 votes short at
this point.
The above figures may not be accurate, because I don't know if the
eligible voter list is up-to-date. I'll ask the treasurer danr,
who maintains it, to make sure that it is.
The polls close at the end of the day (EST) on December 15. That's
eight days from now.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 29 of 184:
|
Dec 8 02:30 UTC 1994 |
We could put a plea in the motd....
|
robh
|
|
response 30 of 184:
|
Dec 8 03:42 UTC 1994 |
What will happen if there aren't enough votes?
|
scg
|
|
response 31 of 184:
|
Dec 8 05:57 UTC 1994 |
Since I'm sure there are people who don't read the motd, it might make
sense to send mail to the remaining elligible voters telling them about the
election. I would volunteer to do the mailing, but I won't because it is
probably best done by a non-candidate.
|
tsty
|
|
response 32 of 184:
|
Dec 8 09:54 UTC 1994 |
wellll, as has been consistant with me for as long as I cna
remember, if the voting is not secret, i don't vote. The mistakes
I have made were my fault - i didn't +think+ to ask
about the privacy issue. Thankxx anyway.
|
kentn
|
|
response 33 of 184:
|
Dec 8 16:44 UTC 1994 |
How is the voting on Grex any less secret than e-mail or any other data
kept on disk here? Anyone with root access has the ability to look at
it all.
Are you saying we should go to confidential paper ballots, TS? I
imagine the board would accept your vote in writing if that was how
you wanted to cast your ballot. The trouble is, they need to verify
your eligibilty to vote...so you will be identified at some point
anyway.
Somebody or something still has to count the votes. It looks to me
that Grex's voting program is more akin to the state's so-called
"secret" multiple-choice ballot in the method of tabulation, than it is
to several "election officials" sitting around a kitchen table counting
paper ballots.
How should Grex be holding its elections if not the way it already is?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 184:
|
Dec 8 17:20 UTC 1994 |
It could be done by having a "flag" which is set when a member votes
on line, and which prevents further votes. The flag should be public,
so it is known who has voted, but not for whom they voted. This way,
no one can find out for whom you voted. However, a person with root
could vote as often as they wished, which is the ultimate flaw in
on-line voting.
|
kentn
|
|
response 35 of 184:
|
Dec 8 18:24 UTC 1994 |
And the people doing the hand-counting can toss paper ballots in the
dumpster, too. Oh well. No perfect system. I'm not keen on people
knowing if I voted or not. As far as I'm concerned, how I choose to
exercise my voting privilege (or not) is my business and no one else's.
I don't mind an aggregate tally of number of votes cast--there is no
tie to identity there.
|
davel
|
|
response 36 of 184:
|
Dec 8 19:04 UTC 1994 |
Re #34: That would remove the current system's capability of allowing you to
change your mind up to the last minute. And this is a really desirable
characteristic for an on-line system.
Now, who's in charge of the exit polls?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 184:
|
Dec 9 08:31 UTC 1994 |
Re #35: you don't have privacy in the fact of your voting or not, now, in
elections, etc. You stand on line for all to see; you fill out forms;
anyone can inspect the voting rolls. My reason for suggesting that the
fact of voting be public is so that there is a record that cannot be
fudged of whether you have already voted or not (it cannot be fudged
because too many people have seen you vote).
|
srw
|
|
response 38 of 184:
|
Dec 10 01:26 UTC 1994 |
The voting system we have now does not make public whether any individual
has voted or not. I think we should send email to all voting members,
reminding them to vote if they have not done so already.
|
tsty
|
|
response 39 of 184:
|
Dec 10 07:35 UTC 1994 |
WEll... if there is a way to identify WHO voted for WHOM, it
would be illogical to presume that WHO is secret.
Maybe I don't understand #38.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 184:
|
Dec 10 08:07 UTC 1994 |
He said "public". Its not public to us ordinary mortals.
|
jep
|
|
response 41 of 184:
|
Dec 10 20:42 UTC 1994 |
I was assured when I became a member that I would not have to vote in
order to make an election valid. I have no knowledge of Grex politics or
issues, and no wish to vote. For a couple of years I insisted on a
"non-voting membership" so that I wouldn't be put in the position of
blindly voting in order to legitimize a Grex election according to the
by-laws. I do not have time to familiarize myself with the issues here.
Additionally, as a Board member of Arbornet, there is a minor possibility
of a conflict of interest which I wish to avoid.
If my non-vote is part of the reason for an election being declared
invalid, I will not renew my membership when it becomes due, in order that
I not interfere with future elections. I'll renew only if I may do so as
a non-voting member. I wish to support Grex, and I occasionally make use
of services available only to members, but it is not appropriate for me to
participate in elections here.
Please exclude me from any mail sent to non-voting members. If it is
necessary for me to resign my membership in order to avoid such mail, I do
so now. You may keep my remaining contribution as a donation.
There, the most pressure I've ever tried to put on the Board of
Directors of Grex. I'm sorry, folks, but I'm uncomfortable with this
situation.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 42 of 184:
|
Dec 10 21:14 UTC 1994 |
Abstentions should count as "having voted" with the !vote routine set to
take abs. I'm not sure this is the traditional way of handling
abstentions, though.
|
jep
|
|
response 43 of 184:
|
Dec 11 01:41 UTC 1994 |
I ran the vote program, and voted 'n' for everyone. I hope this
counts as having voted under the by-law requirement. If it does, I have
no complaint except that it's a silly requirement. If it does not, all my
complaints above still apply.
|
steve
|
|
response 44 of 184:
|
Dec 11 02:16 UTC 1994 |
I was the person who talked to John, and I still think we're OK
in this regard--what we haven't done, is to get others to help the
voting process along. Many people don't really even understand it
yet. So I think that some people like John can fit into our scheme
OK. Perhaps I'm wrong, and if so I'll have an apology to make to
jep about this. But I don't think so.
TS, I'm not sure quite what you're saying. Are you stating that
you won't vote in the Grex elections because Grex has some internal
idea of whats going on with regard to votes? I can say that it is
as secure as anything else here, or rather, really more secure since
this isn't a program and protocol that is widely used.
Back when John (remmers) first did this, I looked at the system
and concluded he'd done a fine job, and moreover, given the electronically
disperate system that we are, this system of voting is really the
only way to do things. Given that more and more of our members are
from places other than a 30-minute drive from Ann Arbor, I can't see
any system of mail-voting being reasonable. Yes, its done. But I
think that using such a system would defeat the purpose of the electronic
communications abilities Grex has to offer.
The only change I can see making to the voting system would be
to make the vote program know that someone had voted once, and thus
would be barred from future voting on that issue. Right now, we have
the rather civilized system of letting the electorate change their
votes if they so desire, right up to the end of the election. We
could change this, but that would mean that you could vote only once,
and thats it. Given the fact that a lot of people need help with
things when they're first running something, I wonder how many people
feel really comfortable with things on their first run-through? How
might we turn folks off of voting in Grex elections if they realized
they'd made a bad vote, *and couldn't change it*?
If others have feelings on the voting issue, I'm sure all the
other board folk would like to hear about it.
|
kentn
|
|
response 45 of 184:
|
Dec 11 02:43 UTC 1994 |
Given the uncertainties (for new users of the voting program, or even
past user since a salient opportunity to use the program is infrequent)
it seems reasonable to me to allow a correction or change to an
existing vote. If you made it a one-chance system, you'd probably turn
more people off to the voting process. I also agree that given we have
such a geographically-dispersed electorate (as well as a login-time-
dispersed electorate), it is reasonable to use an on-line voting system
over a longer period of time than the usual one day voing process.
It looks like Grex hasn't considered (maybe it's unforeseeable) that
a significant, and even large, proportion of its electorate may not
choose to vote. Perhaps a change in the by-laws is necessary, or maybe
a bit more education and stumping is necessary prior to an election.
Personally, I'd be worried that lack of a "quorum" on a board election
would be an indication of a severe lack of involvement among Grex
members. This is something that needs desperately to be addressed,
partially, perhaps, by jep's idea of a non-voting membership. As Grex
and its membership grows, it'll need to involve more and more people
in Grexian activities other than conferencing, party-ing, and such. I
mean get more people involved in the day-to-day operation of Grex, and
in applying their expertise to Grex's problems. I'm assuming if you
have a greater personal stake in Grex, you are more likely to care who
gets elected to board, and that that care leads ot a vote, of course.
|
chi1taxi
|
|
response 46 of 184:
|
Dec 11 08:09 UTC 1994 |
Isn't this a bad time for voting, with so many U of M people involved in
finals or out of town? Will the election be extended 'til a quorum is
reached?
|
chi1taxi
|
|
response 47 of 184:
|
Dec 11 08:19 UTC 1994 |
Another ing. I let my membership lapse, and am just now resubscribing, so
I won't be able to vote. But on the referendum for letting non-members
have more internet access, I voted No, knowing that for financial reasons
I was going to have to let my membership lapse. I can only access by direct
phone line, and there are so many freeloaders clogging up the phones it's
almost impossible to get in. The fee is modest, and if an incentive were
created to increase the number of paying members, we could have phone lines
and increased internet capability out the wazoo. I say only the bbs free,
all internet, pay up!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 48 of 184:
|
Dec 11 08:21 UTC 1994 |
The Grex requirement of a majority of members to vote for an election
to be valid is an unusual requirement in non-profits. However state
law requires that amendment to the Articles of Incorporation be
approved by a majority of members - a much more stringent requirement
than having just a majority *vote* in an election. One non-profit I'm
involved in bases all elections just on votes cast - and no one
complains (everyone is delighted to get live volunteers, how hardly
matters). It is definitely not the intent of the voting rules to drive
members away, but I can see a sense of responsibility doing that
(responsibility in not wanting to interfer with the elections by not
voting, not the responsibility of members of *any* non-profit
corporation - M-Net included - to vote).
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 184:
|
Dec 11 08:27 UTC 1994 |
Bill, Grex has no fees, modest or otherwise. It has only membership dues,
which are considered donations. When we work out the numbers, we will have
to indicate that some small amount of the dues "pay" for some services
that are not available to non-members, outgoing telnet use being one of
these. However even that is only reserved to members because the system
could not handle as open access for telnet etc as for e-mail. Grex aims to
be a 100% open access free freenet, supported soley by donations, but must
also cope with reality.
There are NO "freeloaders" on Grex.
|