[OpenID] Fwd: Several Questions for the Current & Future Board

Sat Dec 20 21:34:25 UTC 2008

Now the foundation has voting tools, is there intent to use it on an ongoing basis (dropping the email roll call practices, mentioned below)?

If not, why not?

Seems as good as what comes built into msft exchange/outlook  (where anyone can easily organize a mini vote by email, with auto result counting - and verification based on eddy's oft used p7c email signatures (if crypto-based assurance levels are called for)

-----Original Message-----
From: chris.messina at gmail.com <chris.messina at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 10:55 AM
To: general at openid.net <general at openid.net>
Subject: [OpenID] Fwd:  Several Questions for the Current & Future Board

(reply-to missed the list)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: chris.messina at gmail.com
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:54:45 -0800
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Several Questions for the Current & Future Board
To: Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk>

Indeed, considering that most votes of the board are done with email
roll call (+1, -1, abstain), we have no idea whether someone's email
account has been hijacked or whether someone is holding a gun to their
head as they hit send.

Still, I think Martin's point is perfectly valid at present: since the
eligible number of voters is small, and since the list of members is
currently not even public, it's hard to imagine tampering.

Heck, as a candidate I don't even know who I should be campaigning
for! ;) (It's not like there's a list of swing OPs or even anecdotal
polling going on!).

Still, I would be curious about making sure there's integrity in the
outcome, and that, as the foundation grows, our mechanisms for
ensuring as much scale.

Chris
On 12/20/08, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Nat,
>
> I agree that the election should be as transparent as possible.
>
> However, on the topic of voter anonymity and coersion, I agree that this
> may be a problem in a national election or something of similar
> significance, but since there is comparatively little to be gained from
> being on the board of directors for the OpenID Foundation I would not
> expect candidates to go to such lengths as threatening voters with
> weapons in order to get votes.
>
> It would be interesting, however, to hear about how other organisations
> with an elected board or similar structure handle this situation.
>
> Nat Sakimura wrote:
>> Just for a record, I am in favor of making the software
>> publicly inspect-able etc.
>> Transparency matters, and it is one of the greatest tool that we are
>> given.
>>  From previous posts on other topics, I think you have found that I am a
>> fan of transparency.
>>
>> Now that the election is almost over, I may as well comment on the
>> issues on the e-voting.
>> Guaranteeing a free will voting is a hard topic. The reason we have a
>> closed room in person anonymous voting with inspectors in most political
>> elections are actually to guarantee it.
>> When it comes to e-voting, this gets rather hard.
>>
>> In e-voting scenario, there is no inspector at the time of voting. It
>> may just so happen that the person was forced to vote with a gun. To
>> mitigate it, one has to be allowed to change his vote. (Still not
>> perfect, but is much better.)
>>
>> There also has to be a guarantee of anonymity because it may result in a
>> retaliation.
>> I do not know how it was assured in this election, but perhaps the fact
>> that we were not allowed to re-cast the vote was related to it. I do not
>> have a solution to fulfill the both requirement. Perhaps a person with
>> more knowledge in this field can enlighten me.
>>
>> For financial transparency: there has to be, and I have repeatedly made
>> this statement, so my position has been pretty clear, I hope.
>>
>> =nat
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:30 PM, David Fuelling <sappenin at gmail.com
>> <mailto:sappenin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hey all,
>>
>>     I have a few questions for either the current or future board members:
>>
>>        1. What kind of software are we using for the election, who
>>           created it, and will it be released publicly for
>>           audit/inspection purposes?
>>              1. Do current candidate have an opinion about OIDF voting
>>                 software being publicly inspectable/available?
>>        2. Does the OIDF currently make it's budget and financial
>>           expenditure information public?
>>              1. Do current candidate have a position on providing full
>>                 financial transparency of OIDF moving forward?
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>     David
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     general mailing list
>>     general at openid.net <mailto:general at openid.net>
>>     http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
  Open Technology Advocate-at-Large

Vote in the OpenID Board Election!
http://tr.im/vote_oidf

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private

--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
  Open Technology Advocate-at-Large

Vote in the OpenID Board Election!
http://tr.im/vote_oidf

factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
general at openid.net
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general