I have no problem with keeping the archive of votes page private until the
end, indeed this will create more a fair election environment.
But I would be concerned with allowing re-voting so I would prefer that
the first vote be considered the primary one in case there are more then
one (alternative is to not count either one).
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, wayne wrote:
I like Greg's suggestion, so here it goes.
I say "NO" to Williams outline, but would say "YES" with the following
changes/clarifications.
In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0411140554220(_dot_)30141-100000(_at_)sokol(_dot_)elan(_dot_)net>
"william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net> writes:
1. Everyone who has participated in spf-discuss and posted at least once
prior to original call for nominations can vote
2. Voting takes place on the web with special form where people are asked
to choose 5 of XX candidates and then email is sent to confirm their
vote (listing their choices) which they need to reply to if vote was
correct or go to webpage again if it was not.
If somebody by chance
ended up replying twice (or voting twice), the 1st vote is the one
that counts.
Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't your last vote count?
All replies immediatly go to special publicly open
archive page.
I think all votes should be kept secret until the end of the election.
First, I prevents tit-for-tat votes, and selective voting based on who
is unlikely to win and/or unlikely to lose. Secondly, it will
encourage people to vote early since people can always keep their
votes secret by snipping at the end of the processes.
At the end person running the elections confirms if each
reply vote came from person who previously posted on spf-discuss (or
machine could do it and limit those who could reply to list to be
compiled
by Wayne) and if it had 5 candidates of choice (although prefered is
that javascript on the webpage makes sure of that), if problems are
found, he/she then posts list of those votes that would not be
accepted and why.
3. The 5 people with largest number of votes are asked to form a council
4. The elections should be run by neutral party and so person doing it
should not be in the running for the council himself/herself
5. Elections take place over the period of 7 days with at least one
reminder sent 24 hour before election closes
6. Initial council has no defined term but must come up with new election
procedures and define its function and term (it SHOULD then call for
new elections once this has all been approved or it MAY specifically
make the poll and ask people to confirm that existing council can
serve reminder of the term)
7. Anybody can choose to resign from the council in that case the person
with next highiest number of votes of those not elected takes his place.
I have some quibbles with the rest of the but I can easily live with
them. I can also live with other minor changes.
-wayne
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
http://www.InboxEvent.com/?s=d --- Inbox Event Nov 17-19 in Atlanta features
SPF and Sender ID.
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net