Re: Open voting?
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Corliss, George
<george.corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Friends,
>
> Arnold suggested that we might reduce the volume of traffic on this alias by
> having the voting done elsewhere. I see three possibilities:
>
> 1. As now, public to stds-1788@xxxxxxx
> + Transparent - Everyone sees all votes
High value.
> + Implicitly reminds all to vote
Very high value.
> - Adds traffic to alias
Irrelevant.
> - Some might prefer to vote more privately
So what? Anyone with a privacy interest can already send a private
vote directly to the Tabulator that the Tabulator will dutifully
ignore.
> 2. Send to an alias including only registered Voting Members
> + Transparent - Voters see all votes
> + Implicitly reminds voters to vote
> - Looses transparency for non-voting members
Serious issue -- a DQ for #2.
> - Some might prefer to vote more privately
> 3. Send private email to me
> Those wishing to cast public NO votes could
> + Reduces email traffic
> - I WILL broadcast more frequent reminders
So we replace messages with content with message lacking content?
This direction is the _opposite_ of progress.
> - Lacks transparency
Very serious issue -- a DQ for #3
The above list lacks an acceptable (to me) alternative to #1. A
modified form of #2 would be appropriate: allow anyone to join the
voting list. Segregating votes from substantive content might be
useful for some participants. We should take that as a given for the
purpose of this discussion But partitioning the participants into
voting and non-voting subsets will not benefit anyone, while it will
seriously hinder the discussion process.
To put this in perspective, given two lists, discussion and voting,
how does limiting the membership of the voting list improve the
situation?
Also I recommend that the Tabulator (or his designee) be empowered to
forward any voting-only message containing content other than the
value of the vote to the discussion list. (Sorry for the extra work
George).
>
> This is an informal poll, not an official vote.
> If you have an opinion, please either
> public to stds-1788@xxxxxxx
> Or
> privately to George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> NO CHANGE GOES INTO EFFECT FOR A WHILE.
>
>
> Personally, I think #3 violates our Policies and Procedures requirement of
> transparency,
Agreed.
> but I think #2 would be OK, if the volume is a problem for
> many
Please explain why the voting list needs to be restricted?
Lee Winter
NP Engineering
Nashua, New Hampshire