How do we do that then ?

[Admin]

In the nominations thread (here (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=101&st=0#entry633)) Paul G0TLG has brought up a valid point.


Sorry to throw a spanner in the works at such an early stage, but...could I request that the poll run for longer? Monday 28th is the first day of my two week holiday and I'm very unlikely to be near a PC with internet access in that time.

Since this is the start of the main hol season, I'm probably not the only one in that situation...

Paul

Fair comment !

The only way I can see of overcoming this situation would be to hold nominations and then poll for three weeks each. Thats a total of 6 weeks to elect one person.

We have six positions in all to be filled.

Anyone have any input as to how they would like to see it all happen ?

[Paul G0TLG]

Me again...

How about running committee (not just chair) nominations for 3 weeks (or whatever). Then run a poll over three weeks. We all get six votes, the six nominated people with the highest number of votes are the committee. They then elect a chairman from among their own number...OR we have one more poll from only the six elected, to pick the chairman.

Paul

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Jul 21 2003, 02:51 PM
We all get six votes, the six nominated people with the highest number of votes are the committee. They then elect a chairman from among their own number....
i don't think the software will allow us to vote more than once - so you can't really do it with a 'top 6' approach - unless we use a different voting system....?

[Teasel]

i don't think the software will allow us to vote more than once - so you can't really do it with a 'top 6' approach - unless we use a different voting system....?
With three weeks to play with, we could always write our own voting software! Hopefully something a little more secure than the Groundspeak forums. I'm assuming this is a secret ballot? Ideally we'd want something that:


Is trusted and open
Didn't expose the user list beyond a single administrator
Sent a confirmation email to people who vote and...
Allows a user to retract 'their' votes if they receive an unexpected email, but...
Does not reveal who voted for who, even to an administrator with access to the server logs


I've offered web application programming in the "Help Offered" forum; if we want to allow six votes per person, I can have a system in place within 3 weeks. (Assuming it's possible for me or one of the GAGB server admins to write a php function which takes a GAGB username/password pair and returns an email address if correct).

[Admin]

Thanks for your offer.

Most importantly though, we need a "Chair" to be elected first. That way, the elected person has the authority and the mandate of the members to deal with the rest of the elections with the assistance of the current caretaking committee.


But on the subject of your offer :

Yes, this is a secret ballot.

The forum software currently in use employs a secret ballot, and even examining the server logs and the database can only reveal who has voted, not how they voted. This can be confirmed by contacting the authors of the software (link at the bottom of every page).

If we were to hand over processing of the vote to yourself, what proof could you offer as to the secrecy.

Also, this path would expose the members list to you.

Furthermore, I'm sure there would be a number of people who would object to allowing somebody with the potential of having a conflict of interest take control of the voting or the software that runs it. Many people still remember the effect on Jeremy P of your offer over the Trigpoint database.

But, I will put your proposal to the rest of the caretaking committee.

[washboy]

...conflict of interest...
Please elucidate this "conflict of interest"


Many people still remember the effect on Jeremy P of your offer over the Trigpoint database.
Ooh! That's rude! :o Should an anonymous "Admin" be making such sleights? That's rather like a sock puppet ;) Erm, who is "Admin" anyway?

I thought all the animosity over the trig thing had been put to bed - presumably not :(

[Chris n Maria]

I thought i would offer to help out here but that seems to be frowned upon these days :(

Not sure what is going on here but I think Washboy has raised some interesting questions. :unsure:

In the meantime instead of reinventing the wheel why not take a lookat:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/actionpoll/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/free/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/referendum/

Chris

[Admin]

I am determined that this forum will not degenerate to the depths that others have, but Washboy has asked a question and "Chris n Maria" have infered support by saying that he raises "some interesting questions".

So, without trying to be pedantic ...


Quote By "Washboy"
Please elucidate this "conflict of interest"
I did say "potential of having a conflict of interest". The GAGB has been slammed very heavily. We have to be very careful that we do not leave ourselves open to yet more criticism.


Quote By "Washboy"
I thought all the animosity over the trig thing had been put to bed - presumably not
This animosity has been put to bed as far as I'm aware. My point is that there are a number of people out there who would object on those grounds. I apologise that it was not better worded.

Oh ! the "Admin" account is simply a logon available to members of the caretaking committee for effectively "stuff from the committee"

Thanks for the links Chris n Maria, we will look into those and if they offer the functionality we need, (if we need it), they might just help out. The caretaking committee also have the resource to write our own polling software, we didn't do it because using the current software we can prove there is no "fixing" of the vote.

[washboy]

Thank-you for your reply, Admin.

Might I make a suggestion?

It is that the "Admin" account be used solely for posts relating to the administration (technical & otherwise) of the forums and website. In addition, another account (perhaps called "The Committee Speaks") be created and used for GAGB announcements and other comments attributable to the committee as a whole. Personal comments should be posted under individual account names.

As you say, you have to be very careful that you do not leave yourselves open to yet more criticism.

[Teasel]

If we were to hand over processing of the vote to yourself, what proof could you offer as to the secrecy.
Depends where it was run. Since I'd probably write the code for a php/mysql environment, chances are it could run on your servers, with no involvement from me after the beta testing. If I were to run the code on my server, then my proof would rely on giving full administrative rights to the server to a person or persons of your choice.

Obviously, the source code would be open to the scruitiny of all.


Also, this path would expose the members list to you.
No, it would expose the list to a single (php?) function running on the GAGB server. The membership list need not be stored on a machine to which the person running the poll has access. Certainly I would not need (or want) access to the list. I would, however, need the assistance of one of your server admins to (write and?) install the function.


I'm sure there would be a number of people who would object to allowing somebody with the potential of having a conflict of interest take control of the voting or the software that runs it.
That pretty much rules out anyone who's standing for election, doesn't it?!

What potential conflict of interest would I have? My site provides download files of cache locations; yours provides political representation of geocaching to landowners. Not much overlap there, methinks!


Many people still remember the effect on Jeremy P of your offer over the Trigpoint database.
I had a dream of turning Jeremy's trigpoint logging system into the best in the world and offered to collaborate. When my approaches came to nothing, I wrote my own (the fifth such system that I'm aware of; Jeremy's being the fourth). I really regret that T:UK could not have been a team effort, but am nevertheless very proud of what I have achieved.


and even examining the server logs and the database can only reveal who has voted, not how they voted.
Do you trust this statement enough to make the server logs and database publically available after the end of the poll? ;)