Votes using the following passwords have been recorded.
452fce0c-ec20-11e8-b2d5-74d4359f0079
T25lIHZvdGUgZm9yIEFuZHJldyBMZWFyeQ
778559955
FTSC0815
28Ahfre-6521
FTSC2018
MaryJaneslastdance
I don't see my vote cast on 2018-12-07 00:11:30 UTC:
7 03:15:01 Msg from 2:5020/545 to 1:132/174 packed via 1:132/174
(the time is MSK == UTC+3).
Possibly, there's some issue with our direct link...
8 of 14 eligible voters cast their ballots.
The period to contest these results begins now
and ends Sunday, 16 December 2018 (20:00 UTC)
8 of 14 eligible voters cast their ballots.
Are we also going to learn about the names of the voters without
linking them to their vote?
the secrecy of the voting has now been compromised and the
logical result would be that it is totally invalid.
One could say that I cannot complain because I was not a candidate
nor a voter, and that is completely in line with the rules governing
this election. However, as the indiscretion is to be attributed to
the vote enumerator himself, he ought to excuse himself from ruling
on this and declare this election a dud.
I don't see my vote cast on 2018-12-07 00:11:30 UTC:My logs show a handful of connects in July, then the one today.
7 03:15:01 Msg from 2:5020/545 to 1:132/174 packed via 1:132/174
(the time is MSK == UTC+3).
Possibly, there's some issue with our direct link...
Nothing for December 7. Your resend came through loud and clear,
your password will be included in my next summary.
What prevented you from answering in netmail? Now everyone knows that long 256-bit hash was used by me, so the confidentiality of the
voting has to be considered as compromised.
If that were a single vote for me (as it was for Carol), I wouldn't
give a single fuck. However, there are other people supporting me as
a candidate, and the difference between me and Andrew is just one
vote, so I think we have to repeat with another enumerator.
the secrecy of the voting has now been compromised and the
logical result would be that it is totally invalid.
There was no promise (or mandate) of secrecy, confidentiality, or
anonymity in the election rules.
That is correct. Under the rules of this election you have no right to contest the results. I will not be excusing myself.
the secrecy of the voting has now been compromised and the
logical result would be that it is totally invalid.
There was no promise (or mandate) of secrecy, confidentiality, or
anonymity in the election rules.
If the vote was not meant to be secret, there was no need for an elaborate password system
and I personally think the electorate has a
right to know who the voters are without disclosing the actual vote.
That is correct. Under the rules of this election you have no right
to contest the results. I will not be excusing myself.
The absence of the right to contest the result does not disqualify me from having an opinion.
There also seems to be a vote by Sean Dennis which went the way of
the Dodo-bird and vanished. it is not mentioned in any of the
reporting ... this is the 2nd questionable vote.
I still think the proper thing is to step back and to announce a
rerun with a new, yet to be decided-upon, enumerator.
If the vote was not meant to be secret, there was no need for an
elaborate password system
I don't consider it elaborate.
There also seems to be a vote by Sean Dennis which went the way of FR>WD> the Dodo-bird and vanished. it is not mentioned in any of the
reporting ... this is the 2nd questionable vote.
There must be some back channel I am not aware of....
Are you trying to bait me into another breach of confidentiality?
I hear your opinion, but nothing you have said tells me that the results would be any different.
What prevented you from answering in netmail? Now everyone knows that long
256-bit hash was used by me, so the confidentiality of the voting has to be considered as compromised.
If that were a single vote for me (as it was for Carol), I wouldn't give a
single fuck. However, there are other people supporting me as a candidate, and the difference between me and Andrew is just one vote, so I think we have to repeat with another enumerator.
Well done on the election Fred!
I see no challange on my side.
8 of 14 eligible voters cast their ballots.
Are we also going to learn about the names of the voters without
linking them to their vote?
I have no plans to do that, but if the eligible voters would like to declare if
they voted or not, I will speak out if they say one thing and did the other.
Actually, it looks like we have a runoff maybe due to that?
A fast revote with just you two running?
With me out of the picture, there is a query on a Sean vote? I don't
know what is going on there.
So my proposal is if any FTSC member feels we need a runoff, we keep it short and sweet. It can be unfair to MVDL to drag it too long.
the question then follows "How many other votes were not counted and for which reason?"
And I still think we have a right
to learn who did not vote, it wouldn't change the outcome of the
election either ...
but it would the next-one.
And I still think we have a right
You have no rights in this proces. You are not a voter or a candidate.
You are JAFO.
the question then follows "How many other votes were not counted and BF>WD> for which reason?"
Here's one. But I don't care any more. Who's chairing the FTSC is like fighting over the Pope's beard...
Don't be too hard on Ward, Michiel. After all, he lives in one of the
few countries in the world were you are obligated by law to vote. If you don't, you'll face severe legal punishment.
At least in theory -- that legal obnoxiousness has never worked AFAIK.
Not even in Belgium.
You and I know Sean Dennis sent-in a vote, you and I know it wasn't counted, you and know it isn't even mentioned.
My guess is it was a timing problem, too late, but it should have been
reported. Since it wasn't, it cast a shadow over this election. the question then follows "How many other votes were not counted and for
which reason?"
This election is tainted and there should be a re-run.
So my proposal is if any FTSC member feels we need a runoff, we
keep it short and sweet. It can be unfair to MVDL to drag it too
long.
A run-off isn't needed but a re-vote from scratch with the same candidates, c'mon Carol ...
- The voting has been compromised, whether or not it changes the
outcome is IMO irrelvant - A vote went lost/unreported. What happened
to that vote and why? - The provisional winner has lobbied to have a particular vote-enumerator - The vote-enumerator defends the outcome
of the vote of which the winner is the one who pushed to have that particular enumerator - The vote-enumerator ruling on hmself?
I still would like to know who didn't vote in this FTSC Administrator election. That would influence my willingness to promote such a
person, or not, when his/her mandate comes up.
Don't be too hard on Ward, Michiel.
After all, he lives in one of the few countries in the world were you
are obligated by law to vote. If you don't, you'll face severe legal punishment.
At least in theory -- that legal obnoxiousness has never worked
AFAIK. Not even in Belgium.
10 Dec 18 17:40, you wrote to Fred Riccio:
Well done on the election Fred!
I see no challange on my side.
Agreed. I, for one, appreciate the effort that Fred put into this.
Thanks, Fred!
Actually, it looks like we have a runoff maybe due to that?
A fast revote with just you two running?
If Alexey chooses to challenge the results, using the procedure specified in the election rules, we will revisit this.
Anyone who thinks there is anything more to the selection than that, obviously does not know either Fred or I very well.
Since you didn't it, is all the more reason to not reveal the names of
the voters.
And I still think we have a right to learn who did not vote, it wouldn't change the outcome of the election either ... but it would the next-one.
I still would like to know who didn't vote in this FTSC Administrator election. That would influence my willingness to promote such a person, or not, when his/her mandate comes up.
In 8 days five of those mandates are expiring ...
* 1 vote seems to be missing if I read Bjorns message correct.
Is Ward correct Björn?
The last connect I see from your system was on
May 10 of this year. If you did send a vote, I need a timestamp from you so I can try to chase it down on my end.
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,042 |
| Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 06:13:20 |
| Calls: | 500,305 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 95,203 |
| D/L today: |
338 files (36,372K bytes) |
| Messages: | 465,497 |