Re: [ga] Voters interest and Defining a voter's roll

[david@aminal.com]

Comments are interspersed.

On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 08:31:12AM +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 15:30 03.02.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
> >Now when we are talking about list rules, it is clear that those not
> >subscribed  to the list have no need and no interest to vote on list-rule
> >issues.
> 
> not entirely - there may be people who have left the list because of the 
> noise level. And I know of at least one person who claims to be following 
> the list by reading the archives.
> Those could be interested. But I think the great majority of interested 
> people is the list subscribers.
> 

If you are referring to me, I'm now subscribed to the list. I've always
thought there might be others doing the same thing, but I don't
really know.

> >In other words for list issues the total voter's roll is nothing more than
> >the subscriber list at any given time.
> >It is important to have a defined roll, so that this roll can be frozen
> >prior to the announcement of a vote.
> >
> >May I propose that those interested in voting enroll themselves volutarily
> >on the dnso website, or via an email to a trusted listmember willing to
> >volunteer building this roll?
> >
> >Then both issues of identity and the measure of interest in voting can be
> >addressed.
> 
> This idea reminds me of the way US elections work; everyone's entitled to 
> vote, but in order to actually vote, you must register....
> 
> Do you think the roll should be public (in order to monitor the action of 
> the roll-keeper), or private (to protect people's privacy)?
> 
> In any case, more than one person should have the responsibility for 
> monitoring the roll, I think.
> 
>                        Harald
> 
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>

I think the registration role should be public, but not including actual
email addresses so that it can't be abused by spammers and others whom
registrants might not want to receive email from.

Public information could be Name, affiliation (if any) and country of
citizenship. This should be sufficient for anyone to 'recognize' a
registrant, and allow challenges to the list if someone thinks it is
being filled with non-existent people. Requiring id up front would be
cumbersome and expensive, but if a specific challenge (with some
reasoning and/or evidence) is made, the subject of the challenge 
should come up with some evidence of actual existence.

Start simple and lightweight, but be aware that problems may occur
and that they will have to be dealt with.

Multiple registration list maintainers is also a good idea, if
volunteers can be found. Share the burden and responsibility.

David Schutt
Speco, Inc (though I'm speaking here as an individual)
david@aminal.com