On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:14:59AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > > I don't see a problem with the Ever Changing Size of the Board. It could > make quorum interesting, though. > > I also like the idea of not requireing in-person voting. I will not go > so far as to *require* GPG or PGP sigs as it is very easy to generate a > new key. (Think web-of-trust). Mail-in ballots can also be forged rather > easily. Even in-person ballots can be, as you can bring in a lot of > non-members and have them vote. > > Anyway, that's something different. >
Whenever I ponder security issues, I start by asking myself the likelihood of someone attacking. Manipulation a SDCS board vote with forged proxies seems a bit farfetched. If it happens, we can deal with it then. > > Task at hand: how to handle the impending power vacuum. > > We are facing the possibility of there being two members on the SDCS > board. We could have those two appoint positions, then enact a special > election for the appointed seats. We would not be in a vacuum, and we > would have an opportunity for democratic elections. Kinda like they did > in Iraq. That turned out well, didn't it? > > -john Who says irony is dead? -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
