Elections January 2006

elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org

11 participants
36 discussions

Upcoming elections
by Cees De Groot 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

Hi all, Goran will post shortly a more detailed announcement on squeak-dev, but I thought it'd be the right way to do if I gave you a pre-announcement: Coming February 15th is the date that the "Islanders" promised to step down. This will happen as planned, together with the rest of the SqF board. Most of the board will be available for re-election, but there will be vacant spots to be filled. Details in Goran's announcement. Which means that the election team has work to do :-). Specifically: find candidates, decide on an election system, and organize the whole shebang. Note: Feb 15th is a target date we'd really like to stick to. 6 weeks should be enough if there can be a quick agreement on how to hold the elections. It clearly is not enough if no consensus can be reached, but I hardly think that that would be a valid reason to postpone the elections. It seems that the arguments have been put forward, there's a "KISS proposal" (the wiki electorate thing or my variation with sign-up and later publication of the electorate) vs a "SqP proposal" (using SqP as a voter's registry) it seems, so my suggestion would be to run these two proposals through squeak-dev, get a feel on how the community feels, and decide - this could be done in a week or so, leaving 5 weeks for implementation and execution). And make it two final proposals, lest the whole discussion starts again on squeak-dev :-). Just my 2 cents on procedure. Being a candidate on the coming elections I'll refrain from everything but factual clarifications (if anyone wants to know who the roots of SqP are, for example. They can be changed at any time, by the way) and practical help from now on. Regards, Cees

1 0

RE: [Elections] Re: Who votes? how does voting work?
by Peter Crowther 03 Jan '06

03 Jan '06

> From: [...] Daniel Vainsencher > First, we don't represent the board, so we don't make their > impression, they do. No; we are merely constructing an artifact, partially on their behalf. > But I agree with what you say - we don't want to create > artificial delays in the progress on the security front, because it > determines when the system starts being a real tool for the community. > > On the other hand, you don't at all address my reason for keeping > security out - it is complicated. And for a system to > succeed, nothing > is more important than that it be simple in the beginning. Simple so > implementation gets finished, simple so people get it enough > to see why its useful. "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that." -- Einstein For a system to succeed, in my experience, it has to be sufficiently useful to its target audience that the members of that audience are each willing to invest the effort required to make the system work. Typically they are willing to invest that time because there is benefit to themselves. Let's try a different artifact. Most 'mildly-secure' systems consist of the following: - Registration with username and password; - A request for an email address; - A challenge to that email address to check that someone there sent the request; - An admonition not to publish the password; - A requirement to log in with username and password in order to make use of the secured resource. This is absolutely not hacker-proof - I could compromise it in many different ways. Yet, for voting, it probably wouldn't be worth my while. So let's consider that our target for a 'mildly-secure' system for a moment and see how much of it we already have: - SqP already asks for username/password/email; - SqP does not validate the email address; - SqP already requires secured access in order to make use of the secured resource; - SqP already has things on which one can register an opinion, namely people and projects. OK, so how about adding 'referenda' as a new kind of thing on which opinions can be registered, giving people the option to validate their email address, and calling that system our 'version 1' voting system? Yes, I accept that we still have to construct our initial set of voters; but I suspect that is going to be the case with any system, and I note that it is conceptually independent of any existing ranking system on SqP. > Doing security right requires more time and > expertise than I can muster, so we need someone else to do/push that > one. Do you want to? Within the time I have available, and with the understanding that I am paranoid, have worked on security in the past, but cannot be considered a security expert... I'm willing to do so. > I will update the spec to allow the voters > to be specified as a simple string, with > 'dvf danielv(a)tx.technion.ac.il 123456 > ls lex(a)lexspoon.org 654321 > ?? Peter(a)ozzard.org 346098' as the initial value. > > Agreed? Not yet - I'd like some clarification. What are the values here? The first set appear to be initials, and may correspond to an account on SqP (although my usename on SqP is not my initials). The second is an email address. The third? - Peter

4 3

RE: [Elections] Re: Who votes? how does voting work?
by Peter Crowther 01 Jan '06

01 Jan '06

> From: Daniel Vainsencher [mailto:daniel.vainsencher@gmail.com] > So like I said before, I propose that version 1 be defined as > inappropriate for any important decisions, and delay all security > requirements to version 2. I reject this proposal. The early decisions are likely to be the key ones, and difficult to unpick later; delaying this until a nebulous 'Phase 2' means that anything important will bypass the voting system ('because it's important') and the decision will be made behind closed doors. This is exactly the wrong impression for the co-ordinators / guides / junta / whatever to be giving at this point, I would argue. > > [Aside: Anyone want to rate the account 'Ozzard' on SqP?] > Want to point to relevant information? Initially, no, I didn't; I wanted to see what reaction I got. I now have reactions from you and from Ken - thanks to both. I've updated the information. Anyone now want to rate me? > I'm posting a status summary at > http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/5835 > feel free to correct for accuracy, but lets keep the discussions here. Seems appropriate, if a little sanitised. - Peter

2 1

change the name?
by Lex Spoon 01 Jan '06

01 Jan '06

Fellows, an alternative that people might want to consider is to rename the group that is organizing. If people prefer to keep the current subgroup in power and then go from there, then how about simply renaming the group from "Squeak" to something like "Islanders Squeak"? That would make this question of who is represented much less important. It would be that group's project, and whoever wants can join in. Whoever does not, can do their own thing. Heck, even if it is supposed to represent the larger group, calling it something like "NetSqueak" would seem to make sense. After all, it's no longer the same project that Squeak Central put together and maintained. Anyway, any organization called simply "Squeak" or "the Squeak Foundation" should surely strive for broad membership from existing Squeak enthusiasts. If that's to be the name, then be prepared for a harder problem.... -Lex

2 1

RE: [Elections] Re: Who votes? how does voting work?
by Peter Crowther 01 Jan '06

01 Jan '06

> From: [...] Daniel Vainsencher > Like I said the last time you posted this list, the barrier against > these people under SqP is practically non-existent. Just make them > users, certify them, and send them their password. Mmm. That's fine as long as one makes reasonable choices for the things that can't be changed, like usernames. I have to say that I'm loath to allow any kind of proxy sign-up on SqP, and would be very wary of the motives of anyone who admitted to doing such a thing. For example, I create an account for Alan Kay, rate it, and ask you to rate it - of course, I tell you I've sent him details of the account. You do this. Great, I now have control of a Master-level account, and can forge postings and ratings from Alan on SqP. And you've certified he's him! Marvellous! Quite apart from probably being a violation of various laws under most Western legal systems, such an approach is most impolite :-). [Aside: Anyone want to rate the account 'Ozzard' on SqP?] > "people > x,y,z are not on SqP" doesn't look to me like a valid reason > to reject SqP. I wouldn't *reject* SqP; I would be cautious about making it the *only* mechanism, however. > Anyway, I > predict over 200 new ratings within 24 hours of the moment we > state that this is the criterion for voting. Indeed. At present, SqP is non-essential. If it becomes more of a focal point, I suspect people will in fact make the effort to get themselves on it and to get their mates to rate them. > On who proposes referenda, a seconding mechanism would be a fine > alternative. So one person proposes, one seconds? Proposer > gets to set the date? I'm with Lex on this - how does a group of concerned outsiders raise an issue? For example, the issue of the legitimacy or otherwise of the current power structure? I think requiring a minimum of n supporters of a proposal would work. We would need to discuss n. 2 is probably small; 200 is probably large. > And a critical matter - do we need a lower bound on voter > turnabout for > a proposal to pass? if not, we probably want a lower bound on > voting time. The approach on UglyMUG (a multi-user game where I've been wrestling with admin issues for almost 16 years now) is to have no lower bound on turnout, but a minimum 1 week discussion and voting time (and as much longer as the proposers wish to allocate). There have been occasions on votes that were perceived as important where people have explicitly said 'I don't understand yet, and hence don't want to change the status quo; I vote against this proposal for now, but let's keep discussing until I understand and can make a reasoned decision'. That tends to heat up the discussion fairly rapidly! - Peter

2 1

Re: [Elections] reputation systems for membership
by Lex Spoon 01 Jan '06

01 Jan '06

"Not necessarily. There is some complex mathematics involved[....] Basically a bucket of points is poured into the network by the roots, and it flows according to certification level. There are also sinks, and the whole shebang results in the cert list. It could be that it currently works that way, but it is certainly not a rule appearing somewhere in the flow algorithm." - Cees de Groot http://macos.tuwien.ac.at:9009/409183724.asHtml Imagine someone who tries to join the Squeak community but has too low of a reputation to be allowed by the system. Aren't they going to be a little mystefied about the reason? Won't they wonder whether they are truly not Squeaky enough, versus not persistent enough in pestering people? Similarly, when someone gets added, what will existing members think? Will they feel confident that even one person in the community took a close look? Won't they wonder, just a little, if the new member merely pestered everyone until someone bumped them in? A traditional membership system would involve at least one person in the community taking a serious look at each applicant. Frequently, there would additionally be a committee that takes a moderate look once the initial person is satisfied. This approach has advantages in both directions. The existing community knows that any new person has been reviewed thoroughly by *someone*, as opposed to getting a pile of reputation bumps by a bunch of people not really paying attention. Further, the applicant gets someone to interact with closely, so that they know what they are lacking if there is a problem. This latter approach is used extraordinarily widely in existing communities. As just a few quick examples, it is used for: - getting a Ph.D. - becoming a Methodist minister - earning a black belt - becoming a Debian developer Anyway, none of this answers the question of who is in the *initial* member set. Using a reputation system still requires picking an initial set of members. Who do we pick? -Lex

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Elections January 2006