[OpenID] What election?

[Nat]

+1

=nat at TOKYO via iPhone

On 2008/12/08, at 7:23, David Recordon <drecordon at sixapart.com> wrote:

> It would be fairly trivial to provide a list of eligible members to
> vote, though I'm unsure about the privacy implications and if the
> Foundation got permission to publicly list members.  Seems like this
> is something we should add to your profile "List me as a member of the
> Foundation" and then use this to build out a page of both individual
> and corporate members.
>
> --David
>
> On Dec 7, 2008, at 1:14 PM, Scott Kveton wrote:
>
>>> Right. These questions are still not answered:
>>> 1. Is there a list of OpenID-s who are eligible to vote.
>>
>> The membership committee would be best to answer that.  David?
>>
>>> 2. Is the election open or closed.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  Can you elaborate on  
>> what
>> you mean by 'open' or 'closed'?
>>
>>> 3. Where are the 'votes' kept, who counts them.
>>
>> The votes are kept in the election software that was written
>> specifically for this purpose.  I'm in the midst of getting public  
>> SVN
>> access available for folks but we're going to need to sanitize some  
>> of
>> the configuration options out (like login information to PayPal,
>> Blinksale, etc).
>>
>>> Instead of a private software development effort, why not use Jyte
>>> for the
>>> open election process? Here's why:
>>>
>>> 1. Everybody with an OpenID (which seems to be the form and pre-
>>> requisite
>>> for foundation membership anyway) can nominate themselves or
>>> somebody else.
>>> (claims such as "http://martin.paljak.pri.ee for OpenID board").
>>> This way
>>> anyone could nominate a participant (a feature not available
>>> currently)
>>> 2. Everybody with an OpenID could cast a "vote" and share their
>>> comments.
>>> 3. On the election day, all casted votes on these claims are
>>> exported,
>>> filtered by the (openly available) list of people eligible to vote
>>> (foundation members) and counted.
>>> 4. Transparency is perfect, everybody could review and verify the
>>> outcome of
>>> the election.
>>
>> There are several reasons for not using Jyte for something like this.
>>
>> 1. I don't believe Jyte will let us do this kind of voting; its  
>> thumbs
>> up or down.  I suppose we could make N claims where each claim is a
>> nomination for one individual but then what do thumbs down votes
>> represent, etc?
>> 2. We have already built software that does what we need it to do.
>> 3. There is research that suggests having real time data on the  
>> status
>> of an on-going election will actually affect the outcome of the
>> election.  I don't know if that's good or bad but its something to
>> consider.  I imagine this has something to do with what you refer to
>> above around 'open' v. 'closed' elections.
>>
>>> I would understand if the foundation process would be more formal,
>>> where all
>>> members would need to have been accepted by (board) meetings and a
>>> requirement to have a paper trail of those decisions etc. But
>>> currently this
>>> seems to be a very OpenID/$25 based process where it could really
>>> remain
>>> 'lightweight and web based'.
>>
>> I think we're accomplishing the above assuming we can get good  
>> answers
>> to the questions you've posed (which I think we're well on our way to
>> doing).
>>
>> - Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general