On 20 Jul 2008, at 22:09, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
The vote-taker should, around the same time nominations start, post
a list of the eligible voters.
I would feel uncomfortable defining participation. Lurkers play an
important role in the
community even if they are not frequently published documents or
even commenting
on them. Voting for the leadership in itself is an important
aspect of community
participation.
Indeed. However, having a low bar to eligibility raises the spectre
of vote-packing, where a large number of addresses join the list in
the run up to an election purely to vote for a particular candidate.
I'm not sure how we can avoid this, with any method for determining
elegibility. Personally, I think that we're a sufficiently small
community that we don't have to worry about these kind of attacks at
the moment - if we grow to a scale where this is a problem, then
hopefully we can evolve new systems as we grow.
I'm not sure how I feel about posting the names of eligible voters.
The current proposal makes these names public by requiring that all
list members be able to access the membership list. I think that
having some form of transparency here is important, both as a method
of exposing vote packing, and of double checking the counts produced
by the chairs. Note that as part of the election process, the names
of those who _voted_ is also publicly disclosed.
We want them hosted by an organization that will survive a single
individual being hit
by a bus, train, plane, etc.
This is critical, in my opinion. Beyond that, I don't really have a
strong view on where they should be hosted, as long as the underlying
data is sufficiently accessible that it can be moved elsewhere as
required.
S.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
