william(at)elan.net wrote:
initial responses from my today's poll show quite clearly
that:
...you interpret your own polls as it pleases you. That's the
nature of polls and nothing special. I don't bother to check
your interpretation based on less than 10 participants.
procedures that can insure openness of the process and
insures that results can be verified by anybody on the list
Generations of dorks tried to sabotage Usenet CfVs, and most
often they failed. In Usenet each vote (by mail to the RO)
is confirmed by mail. If the confirmation bounces, the vote
is discarded (in Usenet all you need is a valid mail address).
The votes are published. If somebody sees errors (or abuse)
he's free to challenge the result.
This procedure has some obvious loopholes, but nevertheless
it generally works. Here we have no loopholes, if somebody
tries to vote with several fake identities John will see it
based on Wayne's published lists, X-checked against GMaNe's
public archive if necessary (GMaNe offers search by group and
address simultaneously)
And if John doesn't see it "we" will see it in the result and
howl and holler. The same sort of public control will catch
all errors. Only in the worst case (if somebody intentionally
tries to sabotage the vote) this procedure has to be repeated
with stricter rules.
I'm not interested in dragging the process
Apparently you're more interested in a Usenet crash course (?)
I just don't think you understand what open process means
and that includes that you would not make rules that restrict
the process
The process _must_ be restricted, "we" (tinw) don't want to
send copies of our passports with digitized fingerprints for a
simple vote, but "we" also don't want a flood of fakes.
Mr Bush is simply not smart enough
Mr. Bush has no vote here, fictitious characters are excluded.
QED
It is impossible to create perfect and self-protected system
immediatly.
s/immediatly// For less than perfect solutions it's useless
to reinvent the wheel, your "4 e" or a similar rule would do
the trick. It's a feature if the RO has some leeway to handle
potential abuse.
I am *not* happy with any attempts by one or two individuals
to derail what is now a fairly fast moving train. Any such
action would be seen as against the best interests of SPF.
Exactly.
*You* can be happy or sad as much or as little as you want.
*You* are not SPF and can not say that something is not in
the best interest of SPF if *you* are not happy with it.
When I said that we're free to make fools of ourself I meant
it only as a principle, and not as an invitation. Bye, Frank