On 02/28/2017 09:38 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/28/2017 07:56 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Henrik Ingo writes ("Re: 2017 update to the SPI voting algorithm for Board
elections [and 1 more messages]"):
Finally, SPI should not be in the business of voting system
innovation. Nor should SPI be in the business of doing our own
detailed analysis of voting systems, as you are doing. We should
leave voting system development, analysis, and recommendation, to
civil society organisations specialising in voting reform, such as
Fair Votes Canada and the UK Electoral Reform Society.
1 Billion times this.
I don't know whether you intended it that way, but in Ian's original
message, this was not a reply to anything I wrote.
Henrik,
My response was the affirm Ian's point that is all. Specifically:
* SPI should not be in the business of voting system innovation.
* We should leave voting system development, analysis, and
recommendation, to civil society organisations specialising in voting
reform, such as Fair Votes Canada and the UK Electoral Reform Society.
Sincerely,
jD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
