Re: [council] Election No. 3 - Explanation and Proposed Action.

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

At Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:13:20 +0200, Michael Schneider wrote:
> 
> At 17:00 16.10.99 -0300, Raul  Echeberria wrote:
> 
> >Mmmm. I think this is not you responsability as a Teleconference chairman.
> >This problem is so serious.
> >I think all of us have to decide it. If there isn't objections during today
> >and tomorrow I believe that it's a consensous.
> 
> I object, unless someone explains in more detail what it means that "the 
> voter's intent was clear, that the voter's intended vote was miscounted 
> (due to a subsequent vote, made in error), and that the miscount was not 
> entirely the fault of the voter". I don't understand the concept of a 
> "shared fault" and that is what the words "not entirely" suggest.
> 
> M.S.
> 
> 
Michael,
Council,

I completely agree with you that more explanations are needed.
Please find below as much as I can provide without disclosing
the full record.
I am ready to answer more questions during the Monday telecon.


Explanation of ballot b08.

A. For each ballot the secretariat post to each
   of the NC voting members a serie of messages:
   1. the first one, with *explanation* about the ballot
         To: council@dnso.org
         From: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr
         Subject: Ballot bXX
   2. the second one, with *the personalised ballot* itself,
      each member receive his ballot
         To: NCmember
         From: vote02@dnso.org
   3. the last one, with results
         To: council@dnso.org
         From: DNSO.Listadmin@dnso.org
         Subject: Results, bXX

B. All messages sent by authorised persons (NC voting members)
   are automatically recorded in the indexed file.
   This file superposed with syslog is complicated enough for
   any manipulation, and it is a guarantee of vote.
   Any authorised reply to vote02 is recorded. Vote results 
   are based on it.

C. Since the very beginning I observe all kind of difficulties
   with email: delays, some emails do not arrive here (Kathryn),
   some arrives in double (Nigel). Some emails are temporarily
   unrechable (Caroline, Erica).  During weekends or evenings
   or on travels some of you do not have access to the business email,
   and use an alternate one (Katoh, Philip, Raul, Erica)
   -- you call me and warn me. Sometimes I receive voice vote
   (Kathryn, Katoh, Theresa, YJP, Nigel, Victoria). Sometimes I receive
   en emergency email for lost ballot (computer crash) or not received
   yet ballot (Ken, Erica).

D. With all difficulties enumerated in (C) I try to be pragmatic,
   when the ballot is lost (whatever meaning of lost: disk crash
   or unreachable email), and there is still time -- vote during 21 hours
   slot time -- I resent a second copy of ballot to the voting person,
   and prefer to have a reply to vote02.
   When problem occurs during the NC telecon, I take voice vote,
   sometimes email, and generate a backup vote to vote02.

E. I shall provide hidden results until the end of voting time.
   This suppose nobody edits ballots, only "X" is placed.
   The results is generated automaticaly with scripts, but at the end
   I verify with my eyes before I sent it to you.
   Then I add the 4-5 leading lines with date, and post to council@dnso.org.
   It happen that one of NC voting members has a programmed keybord
   and when "X" or "x" is hit in some order with reply, a signature
   is added before "X" or "x".
   Pratically it means edited ballot. The calculations of results
   are correct, but on the results file the signature appears.
   To be compliant with the NC rule of hidden results, I need
   to make manual correction and delete signature from results.
   It is quite simple, except that when for the first time this
   problem occured (not in the preliminary vote, but few ballots later),
   I almost had a heart attack -- it was few seconds before I hit send.

F. On Friday morning CET, 5 hours before the end of ballot b08,
   I received an email from a NC member, using *explanation message*
   for vote. I figured out that it is still time to have a reply
   to vote02, and I requested the NC member is he received b08 ballot.
   This NC member is the one with programmed keyboard.
   I sent the copy of ballot b08 from dnso.org, and from my account
   I informed the NC member of edited ballot problem.
   My first mistake is here. As a person knowing a lot about system
   problems and difficulties of users and their confusion, it was
   not approprate to do it at that moment. I should have taken
   the wanted vote, and generate a backup to vote02 by myself.
   The NC member received the ballot b08, and tried to answer
   without editing ballot. Under pressure and fighting with programmed
   keyboard he sent a reply to vote02 giving me explanations
   about keyboard, and unfortunatelly generating error vote.

G. As a secretariat I take voice votes, or emergency votes,
   put "X", and do not comment. I do not have any right to any comment.
   I noticed the difference between the explicit vote in the
   *explanation message* the NC member sent to me
   and the recorded one in vote02, the results of ballot b08, but
   did not find appropriate to give any comment on that.
   My second mistake is here. I should have contact this NC member,
   because it was clear enough from my perspective that the 
   NC voting person has technical difficulties.

H. It is necessary for the subsequent ballots starting on Monday
   October 18th:
   1. to acknowledge each vote with the full copy of ballot received
      (not only ACK bXX)
   2. to give more time *after* results are sent, end *before*
      the next ballot is generated, to ensure that
      every voting persons verify that his vote (recognized 
      with personalized code) is correctly recorded

Elisabeth Porteneuve