[Elections] Re: Who votes? how does voting work?

[Daniel Vainsencher]

First, we don't represent the board, so we don't make their impression, 
they do. 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.

So I propose the compromise that we start implementation of the system 
as proposed, and at the same time ask for security minded people to help 
design the security. 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?

Note that this does not specify an initial voters list/mechanism, we can 
keep talking about that one. I will update the spec to allow the voters 
to be specified as a simple string, with
'dvf danielv at tx.technion.ac.il 123456
ls lex at lexspoon.org 654321
?? Peter at ozzard.org 346098' as the initial value.

Agreed?

Daniel

Peter Crowther wrote:
>>From: Daniel Vainsencher [mailto:daniel.vainsencher at 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
> _______________________________________________
> Elections mailing list
> Elections at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
>