RE: [wg-review] Let's Solve the Voting Matter

["McMeikan, Andrew" <andrew.mcmeikan@mitswa.com.au>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary
Content-Type: text/plain

Forgive my lurking, but I have been lured out.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Derek Conant - DNSGA [SMTP:dconant@dnsga.org]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:02 PM
> To:	wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-review] Let's Solve the Voting Matter 
> 
> If we accomplish anything here with this WG, let's solve the voting
> matter.
> 
Not our reason for existence, but still worth a comment.

	<snip>

> 1.  Scrap the current WG voting process completely.
> 
> 2.  Only those who participate in submitting comments to this WG may
> vote.
> 
What about those who feel their view is expressed already and find that
their workload limits their ability to say "me to" and would rather lurk
until voting is required?  How would you even quantify what counts as a
comment?  This de-lurk or the "me to"'s ? who decides what is substantive?

> 3.  The WG gives 24 hour notice before closing the vote process on any
> subject matter.
> 
That would be ok with but probably longer, I am in GMT +8 and it seems I am
always behind (or out of step with) many goings on

> 4.  WG participants who vote are identified and counted.
> 
> 5.  If WG participants do not want to be identified by their votes, then
> they should not vote.
> 
Intimidation springs to mind, perhaps just a primal fear, but votes need to
be FREE of any hint of intimidation!

> 6.  The majority vote wins.
> 
Only if the vote is suited, e.g.. All net users must be A)right handed. Or
B)left handed.  For common sense yes a majority, but there may be situations
that demand otherwise (50%+1, 67%)

> 7.  A tie vote brings the WG participants back to the debate table.
> 
If there truly is an even split then maybe the issue is wrong, we need to
work together, not have a debating team chest thumping we must do it this
way.  Lets find a way that things would be best done



I think you may be glossing over the voting issue, there may not be an ideal
way within our immediate reach, but I think we can still get a good
indication.  Short of having our DNA on file with a central registry (not a
pretty thought) I'll settle for the fraudsters being in a minority, there is
*some* trust around still.


	cya,	Andrew...

--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary
Content-Type: text/plain;
	name="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="InterScan_Disclaimer.txt"


------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to 
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, copying or other 
use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by 
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If 
you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete 
the material from your system. Logica is not responsible for any
changes made to the material other than those made by Logica or for
the effect of the changes on the meaning of the material. 


--------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary--
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html