-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi,
sorry if this has been discussed anywhere and i just missed it, but... has it been decided what process is being used for the election? i see someone created 'UK voteing account' (sic) on meta, which apparently [0] is a role account people will email votes to.
if peoples' votes are going to be visible to the election committee members, why not have a proper public vote, which is much more transparent and verifiable?
- river.
[0] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Candidate...
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:45 AM, River Tarnell river@wikimedia.org wrote:
if peoples' votes are going to be visible to the election committee members, why not have a proper public vote, which is much more transparent and verifiable?
What do you mean by that? What mechanism are you proposing instead? I think this method is pretty transparent and verifiable, since there will be copies of these emails sent out to the committee.
--Andrew Whitworth
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 14:45 +0100, River Tarnell wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi,
sorry if this has been discussed anywhere and i just missed it, but... has it been decided what process is being used for the election? i see someone created 'UK voteing account' (sic) on meta, which apparently [0] is a role account people will email votes to.
if peoples' votes are going to be visible to the election committee members, why not have a proper public vote, which is much more transparent and verifiable?
It was always going to be visible to someone, even if an election had been ran using BoardVote, as someone has to hold the private key to decrypt the votes. The idea is that only a limited number, but more than one, i.e. the committee members, can see it to make sure one person can't just announce whatever result s/he want. It was commented that a number of candidates would prefer for it not to be a public vote.
KTC
It was always going to be visible to someone, even if an election had been ran using BoardVote, as someone has to hold the private key to decrypt the votes. The idea is that only a limited number, but more than one, i.e. the committee members, can see it to make sure one person can't just announce whatever result s/he want. It was commented that a number of candidates would prefer for it not to be a public vote.
Indeed. The important thing is that none of the candidates knows who voted for who, particularly how the other candidates voted. If someone that gets on the board knows one of their fellow board members voted against them it could cause a division within the board that could only harm the chapter. I have no problem with a 3 other trusted people knowing how I vote (they should all make a statement somewhere agreeing to keep the votes confidential, it probably goes without saying, but it would be best to say it anyway).
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org