|
Grex > Coop7 > #18: Vote program changes -- call for suggestions |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 117 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 117:
| 
Feb 23 12:46 UTC 1995 |
Re #19: In past elections, I've done the client-server thing "by hand",
downloading the votes to my home machine every couple of days during
an election. This insures that there are multiple redundant copies of
the voting records, in places where not all the roots can get at them.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 26 of 117:
|
Feb 23 15:01 UTC 1995 |
If, you were up for electio, John, would this be done by someone
else, then?
|
remmers
|
|
response 27 of 117:
|
Feb 26 15:50 UTC 1995 |
Probably should be, although I didn't do that in past elections.
In elections where I was a candidate, I'd ask someone else to count
the ballots, giving them temporary access to the vote database to
enable them to do so. (Ballots can be counted without looking at
how individuals voted.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 28 of 117:
|
Feb 28 11:17 UTC 1995 |
Put that in the program and there isn't a problem, nor the
opportunity for that problem to occur.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 29 of 117:
|
Feb 28 15:52 UTC 1995 |
Agreed.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 30 of 117:
|
Feb 28 17:44 UTC 1995 |
But, Grex's ballots are *always* counted without looking at how
individuals voted. I'm confused.
|
tsty
|
|
response 31 of 117:
|
Mar 3 08:54 UTC 1995 |
I too appreciate idealism, it's fine, I even have some left.
And then i wonder why a shadow passwrd system had to be created.
|
tsty
|
|
response 32 of 117:
|
Mar 4 09:16 UTC 1995 |
When I really get down to planning something, I intentionally
plan for "avoiding the opportunity for error." And, as I have
repeatedly said, there is *NO* implication whatsoever of the
confidence I have in staff. And I also know that "shit happens."
So, and therefore, plan for avoiding the opportunity for error.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 33 of 117:
|
Mar 5 13:26 UTC 1995 |
Re 31: Er... the shadow password system was created because random users
were downloading Grex's password file and running password decryption
programs against the passwords in it. Totally separate question
from whether or not roots can read votes.
|
tsty
|
|
response 34 of 117:
|
Mar 6 08:26 UTC 1995 |
I expect roots to download the existing passwd file and *CHECK*
it for junk passwds, shadow or not. I'm trying to have the
Grex vote program reflect the philosophy of the American vote
program, which, at this time, it does not.
|
remmers
|
|
response 35 of 117:
|
Mar 6 12:03 UTC 1995 |
Suggestions so far:
o Make candidates' platforms accessible from the vote program.
o Allow "abstain" as a vote.
o Report results of non-members' votes as well as members.
o Make how someone voted untraceable.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 117:
|
Mar 6 23:36 UTC 1995 |
It was suggested that the last be optional, so a voter could change
their vote (but vote would be traceable) or elect to vote once
(unchangably - but untraceable).
|
sidhe
|
|
response 37 of 117:
|
Mar 9 19:24 UTC 1995 |
Sounds good- ideas?
|
tsty
|
|
response 38 of 117:
|
Mar 21 09:50 UTC 1995 |
I like the list in #35, and support all of that progress. AS a matter
of priority, I would suggest an order in reverse of the list, unless
all four points are to be included as the group of changes to me
effected.
|
carl
|
|
response 39 of 117:
|
Mar 21 11:24 UTC 1995 |
I might have missed discussion about the candidates' platforms.
I'd be in favor of the idea if it were presented as a menu
option--i.e. a person could go ahead and vote without *having* to
read the platforms. Also I think it would be good to have a
maximum, (10 lines?, a screenful at most?), that a candidate
could include which would be seen in the vote program.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 117:
|
Mar 21 15:06 UTC 1995 |
That's what I had in mind, in suggesting access to canddiate statements.
|
ajax
|
|
response 41 of 117:
|
Mar 22 19:27 UTC 1995 |
John, I vaguely recall the last time I voted thinking that the
user interface might be tweaked a bit. The vote program isn't
available right now, so I can't make any specific suggestions,
but if you post the menu structure you have planned, you might
get some useful user interface feedback. No big deal though,
given the frequency with which there are votes on Grex. Reliability
and security are much more important than ease of use, and those
aspects already seem well designed!
|
remmers
|
|
response 42 of 117:
|
Oct 23 16:45 UTC 1995 |
Hello! This is the place to discuss changes in the vote program.
Since this item has been sleeping for quite a while and the next
board election is fast approaching, I thought I'd enter this
response to wake it up. Here's my take on the suggestions made
thus far:
(1) Make candidates' statements accessible from the vote program.
This is definitely do-able, and my inclination is to
do it if there's a concensus that it's a good idea.
Any thoughts?
(2) Allow "abstain" as a vote.
Could be implemented, but is it worth the effort, now
that we don't have quotas? Abstentions wouldn't affect the
outcome of the election. My inclination is not to do it
unless people convince me otherwise.
(3) Report results of non-members' votes as well as members.
Past practice has been to allow all users to vote (but
of course count only the ballots of members in good stand-
ing in determining the outcome of the election). But
non-member votes haven't been reported in the past.
They easily could be, without modifying the vote program.
I have no problem with doing it.
(4) Make how an individual voted untraceable, even by root.
That's a hard one. There isn't time to implement it for
this election, if the implementation's going to be done
by me. I'm also not convinced that it's worth doing.
It's true that votes are stored in such a way an
individual's vote *could* be determined, but in
practice, the ballots are counted in such a way
that we don't look at individual votes. I just cd
to the vote directory and do "cat * | sort" or some-
thing close to that.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 43 of 117:
|
Oct 24 00:18 UTC 1995 |
1. Yes. 2. No. 3. Yes 4. ? I have concerns about completly untraceable
actions *in this medium* I just don't know about this one. My inclination
is to say no, due to the realistic necessity to combat crackers of
unknown skill. Paranoid?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 44 of 117:
|
Oct 24 00:31 UTC 1995 |
I think reporting non-users votes at least is a positive step. Lets
voices be heard, if not counted. Might upset somebody who lost by one
or two votes to find out he'd have won if all users voted, but dont see
that as much of a downside.
|
steve
|
|
response 45 of 117:
|
Oct 24 00:44 UTC 1995 |
1) If people care to read what the candidates are saying, they
can look in the conferences to see. I don't think thats unreasonable,
and given the fact that most people seem not to want to vote anyway,
I don't think its worth the effort myself. There would have to be
the possibility of the candidate being able to change their statement
whenever they wish, without help from voteadm, so I see this as
perhaps opening up another can of worms. Let's finish off the
currently opened cans first. 2) Abstain sounds interesting,
maybe even useful. 3) Definately being able to record non-members
votes is a useful thing to do. 4) Untracable voting isn't worth
the effort--*everything* else on Grex depends on slime not getting
the root pw; private files, email, the protected password database,
everything. If we have a corrupt root running around, I'll bet
any amount of money that they'd go off into people's private areas
and email, first. Voting is a rare thing compared to email.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 117:
|
Oct 24 03:26 UTC 1995 |
I like to see it made easy for members to learn something about candidates
without reading cfs. Maybe they don't even read cfs, even though they pay
their dues and support Grex. But I do think it should be kept simple: ten
lines or so should be enough.
|
ajax
|
|
response 47 of 117:
|
Oct 24 07:19 UTC 1995 |
(1) Yes, show candidate statements (possibly limit length?).
(2) Abstentions wouldn't hurt, but don't see the need.
(3) Sure, report non-member votes (you generally just report winners,
not total votes for each candidate, right? Either way, I'd report
non-members (or totals) the same way member votes are reported.)
(4) Makes a fun technical challenge, but nah, I'm more comfortable
with a traceable program unless it's exceedingly well-tested.
|
remmers
|
|
response 48 of 117:
|
Oct 24 10:09 UTC 1995 |
Re #47 point (3): I've always reported the total number of
votes each candidate got.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 49 of 117:
|
Oct 24 15:00 UTC 1995 |
(1) Yes, show candidate statements. Length limit is good.
(2) Abstentions wouldn't hurt, but don't see the need.
(3) Only report non-member votes if there's a certain minimum number
of them? Otherwise, if, say, only one non-member votes, their votes
are very traceable. I still don't understand why non-members want to
cast votes, though, since they're not counted toward anything.
(4) Non-traceability probably isn't worth the technical hassles. And
it negates people's chance to change their votes, which I think is a
much more important capability in the vote program.
|