RE: [registrars] Not a problem

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Bob,

Fair points all. And I don't question the results of past votes (not
counting our first stab at the NomComm vote anyway). I just don't want
anything to start giving reason to question them now. Obviously, this
whole process needs some further thought.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:20 AM
To: Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Not a problem

At 05:14 AM 3/11/03 -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>It also escapes me why having some rules in place for our voting is
such a
>problem for some. If the technical issues involved with faxes and
online
>voting is such a problem, how in the world are you going to run a
>registrar?

Dear Tim:  Does it somehow escape your perception that the voting member

from a given company could be the CEO rather than a highly technically 
competent engineer?  The titular owner of the company can delegate to 
another or may make the decisions him or her self.

The technical hurdles to voting should reach the lowest common
denominator, 
or be very close to it.  The fact that there was a verifiable failure in

*our* established system should be more than enough to show that the
hurdle 
was too high.

Regarding the "poll tax", I was not opposing it.  Michael Palage pointed

out that it is no longer needed.  In the infinite scheme of things, it
will 
be deleted.

Sorry you think I was unfair.  I am only trying to get you and others to

think more broadly on issues.  I think I see a bit of tunnel vision;-}

BTW, we never had these problems with Dan Busarow's "Votebot".  I ran it

first in PAB back in 1997.  Rick has selected a different system
supposedly 
because it was less expensive or free.  Dan never did charge PAB for his

Votebot.

Regards, BobC

>No matter how we do it, there will always be issues when new
>members come on board close a vote. But that's exactly when we need to
be
>careful about what we're doing to protect the validity of the results.

[We were plenty careful before:-)  I hope you are not questioning that
fact.]



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Measure twice and cut once."
 From "Little Britches".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~