On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Michael Meeks <michael.me...@novell.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 07:02 +0300, David Nelson wrote:
> I strongly suggest we simply copy the GNOME process here; this > generates a unique random key per person which is mailed out, and used > instead of a name when voting; thus the voting record can be published, > and independently analysed while keeping it anonymous (outside of the MC > that is). Just to make sure I understand it correctly: it is 'anonymous' but each voter know _his_ anonymous token and therefore can verify that his vote has been recorded accurately, by cross-checking the published details-values right? and that is the basis of the temper proof mechanism. It is incumbent on each member to make sure that he received his token and that is vote is correctly counted. (that his make sure that his email didn't get intercepted somehow, or that the MC did not received a spoofed email). I think that pgp/gpg-signing these email would remove some possibility to interfere with the process. (note that if you add encryption of the vote-email then you can even achieve end-to-end anonymous(1) voting as long as the group that verify the signatures is not the group that decode the encrypted vote) > > To analyse the results, OpenSTV is used I think, and the results > published: OpenSTV is GPL, but only available for download for a fee. It would be nice to find a way for anyone, or at the very least for Members, to be able to use the raw result and re-calculate the result for themselves... ( to temper proof the last step ) Norbert PS: Not that I am overly concerned about election tempering... but as the saying goes: Trust but Verify :-) and I'd like to avoid, as much as possible, any room for controversy on that topic. (1) Although we want to be open and transparent, open voting on issue is good, but when we vote on 'person, candidate', it is indeed probably better, to avoid 'poison', to keep that anonymous... but the worse is a partial anonymous, where things are anonymous except for the ones 'in the know'. And again this is not a concern about any individual.. processes we put in place should be design to to provide lasting stability, not relying on _everybody_ involved doing the right things at all time.. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
