Re: Yes to Publicity! Not to Anonimity! Was: Re: GNOME Foundation Annual Elections - proposal

On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 01:26, Janne wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 03:04, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote:
> > Read you own previous reply. You said `same counter'. So I can look up
> > the vote. THe first 3 digits were supposedly unique.
> The three sequence digits are only sufficient to look up whether the
> person voted or not. You would need the entire key to look up what the
> person voted for.

I guess when the suggestion included to publish a list of keys and votes
than that wasn't correct?

>  Open ballots give exactly zero more security
> than closed ballots. 

We can't know this until we know the voting system in detail. Various
proponents have asked the opponents to explain at concrete examples  why
the anynoymous voting is not more secure. To do that of course the
voting system has to be known.

> The discussion has veered off on what voting mechanism to use. A better
> order of events would be to first decide that closed voting is to be
> used, rather than open voting (and, again, in light of this discussion I
> would say closed votings seems long overdue).

It seem that there are at least 3 groups of opinions:

1) Use open voting. (I for one believe in the accountability of voters
to the gnome community. While I have never looked up the votes, I just
never had a cause considering the current board.)

2) Use anynonymous voting if it is as secure as open voting, otherwise
stick with open voting.

3) Use anonymous voting.  

To decide whether group 2 counts in favour or against anonymous voting
one needs to evaluate the security issues. One can not do that until a
system is presented.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]