RE: Answer - Re: Okay, Let's Delegate Ourselves - [wg-review] Re:Voters should indicate t hey voted!

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

Derek and all:  Haven't had time to read all the e-mails but I would like
to suggest that it is not the way a person votes on a particular subject
but who is involved in presenting suggestions and representing new ideas
that may be important.

For instance, I may contribute to this working group a variety of
suggestions and ideas but afterwards when the real world looks at this
working group the natural inquiry will be:  What qualified us to make these
suggestions and contributions?

In my business world, I would find information from Karl or Kent that has
been supplied more important to making a suggestion than someone like
myself because I know who they are, where they work, what they do, who they
are "aligned" with (at least to some extent), their "qualifications", etc.
However, no one knows anything about me except that I like to write to this
working group.  Whose input is more valuable in the long run?

Cindy Merry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Derek Conant - DNSGA
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:29 PM
To: Roeland Meyer
Cc: Miles B. Whitener; bukko@od2.com; 'Digitel - Ken Stubbs';
wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: Answer - Re: Okay, Let's Delegate Ourselves - [wg-review]
Re:Voters should indicate t hey voted!

The first step should require that all those who vote be identified.  If
someone out there is going to play games with this WG, then we may learn
about
their identity later.  However, this WG is very small and we are all
beginning
to know each other here through our comments.

Identifying voters allows for us to better trust, understand and
communicate
each other.

I proposed the following 7 steps:

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02409.html

Derek Conant


Roeland Meyer wrote:

> This may be worded ambiguously. With the polling-booth, it is not
possible
> to vote multiple times per entity. The only weakness it has is multiple
> faces of the same entity. Currently, this is being answered by manual
> filtering of registrations. This is not a scalable fix. But, it certainly
> answers the volume we have here. Previous discussion wrt voting systems
(as
> opposeded to polling systems), were for large-scale operations.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:02 PM
> > To: 'Derek Conant - DNSGA'; Miles B. Whitener
> > Cc: bukko@od2.com; 'Digitel - Ken Stubbs'; wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: Answer - Re: Okay, Let's Delegate Ourselves - [wg-review]
> > Re: Voters should indicate t hey voted!
> >
> >
> >
> > > 1.  To prevent malicious activity where a voter votes more
> > > than once on
> > > a given subject.
> >
> > Not possible with the current system, as has already bene explaine
> > exhaustively. Further hammering on this point can only be
> > construed with
> > evil intent to disrupt these procedings.
> >
> > If you don't understand the technology, pay someone who does.
> > --
> > 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
> >

--
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

--
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