From: steve@bucolix.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Subject: Voting Procedures *and* How Do You Verify Votes? 
Reply-To: steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:47:08 GMT

In article <w5cnvpa@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>steve@bucolix.ece.ncsu.edu (Steve Garnier) writes:
>> I'd like to learn a little more about email, but I think the topic of
>> email goes beyond the scope of the subject and news.groups. 
>It's perfectly relevant to the discussion at hand, in which you've
>"dismissed" the possibility that people might mail a vote twice because
>they're not certain that their vote got through the first time.  If you
>don't understand these simple facts about how the net works, you really
>don't have any business expecting people to take you seriously when you
>try to change more complex things like the guidelines.

I note that you did not refer me to an appropriate forum wherein I could
learn about email, even though I specifically requested this information.

Let's try to bring a few things back into perspective.

The following entries formed the "controversial" list:
---
FURRJK@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU Joel Furr 
Furr@cup.portal.com 

sybase!leighann@Sun.COM Leigh Ann Hussey 
sybase!leighann@Sun.COM Leigh Ann Hussey Oster 

sb3t+@andrew.cmu.edu "Shirl G. Grant" 
sggrant+@pitt.edu Shirley G Grant 

ACAD8025@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca "Problem Reporting, A" 
ACAD8059@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca Mike Mychalkiw 
ADVI8721@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca advisor's utility disk 
---

I was obviously wrong about the "Furr" votes.  Note that Leigh Ann's vote 
was the only vote on the list with UUCP delay problems.  All remaining votes
on this list are at Internet sites.  As far as RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca is concerned,
if you can telnet to port 25 on that host, then it is on the net and not a 
UUCP host. (This is according to a sys admin at another site who performed
the telnet, and I have subsequently confirmed his telnet claim).

The votes from andrew.cmu.edu and pitt.edu were transmitted by the same 
individual, who was under the impression that "One Account, One Vote" was
acceptable practice.

PRIOR TO THE ORIGINAL PUBLICATION OF THIS LIST, two separate email transmittal
attempts were attempted to all three accounts at RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca.  I did
not receive a response until I sent the third transmittal to all three
accounts, and this occurred after the list publication.  The single respondent
(with the "human" name) refused to identify his "coworkers" who voted from
"Problem Reporting, A" and "advisor's utility disk".  It is possible that the
first two multiple email transmittals floated off into the aether.  
RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca does not accept finger connections, but will accept sendmail
connections to those accounts (or are those email aliases?).  Note that no
response was ever obtained from "Problem Reporting, A" and "advisor's utility
disk".  So, just how do you vote-takers verify that these three votes were
indeed emailed by three separate "people"?  I really want to know, folks!
PLEASE TELL ME.

As far as the UUCP delay problems are concerned, I believe that more frequent
release of vote acknowledgements (perhaps once a week during the CFV) might
help alleviate this problem.  Are there any reasons why this would not help?
Or do you consider this task more burdensome than the cost of post CFV 
complaints?

As far as the "One Account, One Vote" misunderstanding is concerned, a minor
change to the Guidelines would be prudent.  All I ask is that the gurus of
news.groups incorporate their *unwritten* rules/guidelines into the
Guidelines.  Modify the Guidelines to read either that "One Person, One Vote"
is the only acceptable voting philosophy, or perhaps state that multiple
voting from separate accounts ("One Account, One Vote") is unacceptable.
PERHAPS THIS PHILOSOPHY SHOULD ALSO BE REITERATED WITHIN EACH CFV, and in
that way we could educate those voters that "don't read the Guidelines".
I don't understand why you find *THIS* proposal objectionable.  Why don't
you publish your "unwritten" rules/guidelines?

Also, for those users who do vote multiple times, their most recent vote,
and only their most recent vote, should count in the final tally.  This
would free up the vote-taker from having to contact those people who voted
both YES and NO on a CFV, and ask them what they really wanted.  I know that
this heroic yet cumbersome approach has been used on at least one previous
CFV.

UUCP delay arguments have no impact on "One Account, One Vote", nor do they
impact the concept of publishing "unwritten" rules/guidelines.  Arguments
stating that the Guidelines should not be changed because people don't read
them are as confused as the people who don't read the Guidelines.  I would 
greatly appreciate any constructive discussion.

Steve Garnier - DoD #00000005 - '79 XS1100SF w/ 157K+ miles and *climbing*
KotF (Flame),  KotAM (Anecdotal Motorcycle),  The Daemon's Byte
       Contrary to popular belief, I am not the Devil's advocate...
                  ...but I am his speech writer.