Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] About elections


On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Michael Meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 07:02 +0300, David Nelson wrote:

       I strongly suggest we simply copy the GNOME process here; this
generates a unique random key per person which is mailed out, and used
instead of a name when voting; thus the voting record can be published,
and independently analysed while keeping it anonymous (outside of the MC
that is).

Just to make sure I understand it correctly:
it is 'anonymous' but each voter know _his_ anonymous token and
therefore can verify that his vote has been recorded accurately, by
cross-checking the published details-values right?
and that is the basis of the temper proof mechanism.
It is incumbent on each member to make sure that he received his token
and that is vote is correctly counted. (that his make sure that his
email didn't get intercepted somehow, or that the MC did not received
a spoofed email).
I think that pgp/gpg-signing these email would remove some possibility
to interfere with the process.
(note that if you add encryption of the vote-email then you can even
achieve end-to-end anonymous(1) voting as long as the group that
verify the signatures is not the group that decode the encrypted vote)


       To analyse the results, OpenSTV is used I think, and the results
published:

OpenSTV is GPL, but only available for download for a fee.
It would be nice to find a way for anyone, or at the very least for
Members, to be able to use the raw result and re-calculate the result
for themselves...
( to temper proof the last step )

Norbert

PS: Not that I am overly concerned about election tempering... but as
the saying goes: Trust but Verify :-) and I'd like to avoid, as much
as possible, any room for controversy on that topic.

(1) Although we want to be open and transparent, open voting on issue
is good, but when we vote on 'person, candidate', it is indeed
probably better, to avoid 'poison', to keep that anonymous... but the
worse is a partial anonymous, where things are anonymous except for
the ones 'in the know'. And again this is not a concern about any
individual.. processes we put in place should be design to to provide
lasting stability, not relying on _everybody_ involved doing the right
things at all time..

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.