No problem Ian. I understand the reasons. I was not the only confused and I am 
happy everything has been clarified. It is also great that despite everything 
it was possible to independently recount the election which confirms the 
process is working transparently.

Thanks for your effort and congratulations to the new board. :-)


On Jun 1, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Ian Cordasco <> wrote:

> This list has roughly always had the consensus that having ballots
> with candidates ordered differently was a good thing to avoid the
> ordering having a significant impact on the results of the election.
> Yes this is not an ideal way of using eVote, but it is the current
> solution we have chosen. Mark and I may work on making eVote handle
> randomization in the future, but I frankly doubt that will be fruitful
> given that the ballot is one large template and I'm unconvinced eVote
> could be modified in simple enough way to make the ballots random.
> Cheers,
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Steve Holden <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Massimo DiPierro
>> <> wrote:
>>> Can we please use the system the way it is intended next time?
>> This look sot me like a usability issue: can it be addressed with
>> documentation?
>> Steve Holden
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSF-Community mailing list

PSF-Community mailing list

Reply via email to