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
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@tx.technion.ac.il 123456 ls lex@lexspoon.org 654321 ?? Peter@ozzard.org 346098' as the initial value.
Agreed?
Daniel
Peter Crowther wrote:
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
Elections mailing list Elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/elections
elections@lists.squeakfoundation.org