On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Frank Ellermann wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
Its pretty standard practice that re-voting should not be
allowed.
That's not true, in Usenet you can change your mind resp. fix
errors.
I would strongly advice on not using USENET or any other chat-network as
examples for voting or for organization strucuture. We're trying to create
organization which encompases not only the multi-user communication (i.e.
chat/list) which we already have as far as spf-discuss but larger scale
organization that is capable of delivering protocol-level documents and
working on helping to implement them for entire internet.
And while some of you are more familar with how to best organize chat
groups those have completely different requirements for organized
discussion then what we have for SPF and basing our organization
decisions on your experience with chat group organization is a bad idea
and may cause us problems both directly and also in how other organizations
(including government) view SPF Community as an organized group. I would
also suggest NO DECISIONS on anything regarding SPF future be done based
the IRC conversations (this really looks bad to those watching what we
do and how because many have certain view of what IRC which I'm sure some
of you would never agree with) and that references to IRC be limited or
none at all on this list.
The most obvious case is sending a vote with a "secret"
address, and then exchanging it against the same vote with a
"public" address, because the votes will be published, and the
address harvesters are everywhere.
You can convert text-only address into jpeg and include that on the page
ane replace "@" with "<at>" or something similar that harversters will
not be able to parse.
Convincing somebody is not necessarily "manipulation".
During elections in most countries (not US though) media coverage is
restricted - there are reasons for it because there are some very
interesting manipulation methods that can be used (well dated leaks,
rumors, etc) that can cause change in election results.
And if a candidate does something very stupid during the vote, like
say withdraw, then changing a vote is the natural reaction
That is known problem and usually candidates are not allowed to announce
withdrawing during elections for this reason (or rather media is not
allowed to distribute such news, i.e. see above). If this does happen, the
election organizer can allow specific people who voted for the candidate
that withdraw to revote for one other candidate (i.e. JohnP can allow that
at the time vote is being verified).
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net