[Elections] Squeak Elections Summary

[Ken Causey]

On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 17:05 +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> To stay for a moment on the technical sides:
> 
> Yes, I agree - not bad overall. Many of these problems could have been 
> solved, however, by some of the following precautions:
> 
> 1. Telling people in advance to check that their SqP account is 
> certified, has a current email address, and a full name (the last should 
> be a requirement to voting).
> 2. Getting the SqP list from Ken with full names and certifications as 
> well as emails. Makes dealing with missing emails more likely.

And I would be happy to help there.  Again I need to get with Cees to
figure out how he has been doing this in the past.

> 3. Sending mails to all SqP accounts mentioning the elections - both to 
> awaken observers that may have done more since, and to get the bounces 
> earlier.
> 
> While sending people ballots manually was critical this time, we should 
> try to avoid it in general, since malicious voters might use it to vote 
> twice.

Is there no mechanism for sending them the same exact email again with
the same exact ID number?  If so then it doesn't matter how many copies
they get, they only get one vote per ID.  If not, that's very
unfortunate, lost emails are a nearly unavoidable situation,
particularly as the size of the voter pool increases which I both expect
and look forward to.

> On other fronts, I was happy we had lots of candidates and less than 
> thrilled about the level of conversation that developed between 
> candidates and voters. I think that while it isn't our role to guide the 
> discussion, we do need to do something to have more meaningful platform 
> statements. I think we should probably have this part of the discussion 
> on squeak-dev, though.

I agree with having a discussion about this, if any, on squeak-dev.  I
don't have a problem with how things went.  I feel that it is the voters
responsibility to make themselves familiar with the candidates and the
candidates responsibility to make themselves known if they wish to be
elected.  I have no problem with the Election team making more extensive
facilities available for this sort of communication but I personally
would not be comfortable forcing the candidates to participate any more
than each wishes to.

Ken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/elections/attachments/20070308/e54f688f/attachment.pgp