> On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Ryan Sleevi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:25 AM, philliph--- via Public <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I am finding the arguments here rather surprising.
>
> When counting an election, the questions at issue are always
>
> 1) Is the person permitted to cast a ballot
> 2) What was their intent
>
> So to dismiss ‘intent’ as irrelevant is off the point, to say the least.
>
> In this case we have the concern that there is an audit log so that the votes
> are public. Which is of course a reasonable requirement. But one that is
> surely adequately met by post ballot publication.
>
> No, it's not met by our Bylaws.
>
> Phillip, this isn't a matter of debating intent. We have Bylaws that govern
> this. They were not followed. Are you representing official Comodo opinion
> that believes we do not need to follow our Bylaws?
I try to leave questions of law to lawyers precisely because the law is not
computer algorithm.
It is not the bylaws at issue here, it is the interpretation of the bylaws, and
that is not the same thing at all.
Given who we are, if we want to create a completely automated etc voting system
then we should design a protocol and write some code. The current situation
providing a use case illustrating the need for parties to be able to verify
their vote and know it will be counted.
Given that we instead chose to use a listserve, the protocol equivalent of duct
tape, I think we should expect to have to allow for machine error, user error
and combinations thereof.
Really, is this what you want to make your last stand on?
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
