On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 23:23, Jeff Waugh wrote: > I think the reason for that is that you haven't strongly backed up why the > current system has definitive advantages for the Foundation. You've roughly > said "it's nicer that way". :-) The current method may not have any great advantages for the Foundation, but hte proposed method appears to have significant dasadvantages. > Well, I was uncomfortable with the proposal at first, mainly because I > wasn't convinced that we could satisfy the trust of Foundation members. I'm > less concerned now that methods to allow indepedent counting of published > votes have been raised and discussed. Well, there have been claims that independent counts are possible but since the provided data can not be checked those are indeed just claims. By having an anonymous vote we put all our trust into those that administrate the election, effectively those that are currently `in power'. While we may verify that our `code' is correctly associated with our vote there does not seem to be any mechanism to guarantee that all listed votes are indeed cast by valid voters: say the foundation has 400 members, 50 of them in fact cast a ballot but the list of vote lists 100 codes and corresponding votes. Those interested in the election (and having cast their vote) may check the result and verify their own ballot but that are only 50. the remaining members are unlikely to check since they have already shown not to be interested in that election. Even if they do, each has a 75% chance that it is correctly recorded that they did not cast a vote. Since those that are interested in the election have no opportunity to comment to any non-voter: "I see you voted for X, but you always said he was a bad ..." it is unlikely that any vote tampering would be detected. (Note that to fix most votes you only have to add a few votes, so realistically probably a list of 65 votes would suffice and only 15 of the 350 non-voters would be in the position to recognize the fraud,) Andreas PS: I hope it is clear that I don't believe that anybody in the Foundation would be interested in such a fraud, but we should also ensure that the election appears to be trustworthy. > > Given that no one has voiced strong objections based on trust (thus far), it > seems that the proposal is uncontroversial. > > > I would be glad if proposed new system would include (if possible) an > > option to vote "in open" in addition to the "anonymous" mode as I > > suggested in another message. This would make myself feel better :) > > I think this might be seen as overengineering. Why is there a need to > provide a 'public expression' mode of voting? What are the advantages to > Foundation members? > > - Jeff
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part