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
Ugh, you raise the scepter of security. I completely agree this is a critical requirement of any voting system (and, btw would apply exactly the same to a wiki based, manual endorsement system).
To do this right, we probably have to go the way Debian does and start doing key signing parties. However, I believe that if we start putting crypto, protocols and physical presence requirements into the system now, we'll never actually use it to vote. We need to first get some value out of it, then add on the difficult requirements.
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.
Of course that by the time any legally binding decisions are being made using the system, we need it to support real authentication, and at that point everyone would have to do that on their own. But we can still create other peoples accounts for version 1, and might want to do it in order to get started with a reasonable list.
[Aside: Anyone want to rate the account 'Ozzard' on SqP?]
Want to point to relevant information?
"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.
Until we have security - I agree.
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.
Ok, I'm not objecting.
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!
This sounds like a reasonable approach. Implementation is pretty simple. I would go for this, unless something better pops up.
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.
Daniel
elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Daniel Vainsencher -
Peter Crowther