01 Oct 1999: Change to the Voting Procedures within the UK Hierarchy

From: voting@mort.demon.co.uk (Malcolm Mladenovic)
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 18:04:39 GMT
Subject: RESULT: Change to the Voting Procedures within the UK Hierarchy
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management


                          RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES

           Change to the Voting Procedures within the UK Hierarchy


        Proponent: postmaster@chocolate.demon.co.uk (Robbie Irvine)

        Primary Votetaker: voting@mort.demon.co.uk (Malcolm Mladenovic)
        Secondary Votetaker: af@contract.co.uk (Alan Fleming)

uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.net.news.management



Proposal E (Removal of optional half-way ack) ---------------------------+
Proposal D (Disallow freeform votes) -----------------------------------+|
Proposal C (Requirement for formal acknowledgement) -------------------+||
Proposal B (Validity of ballot papers) -------------------------------+|||
Proposal A (Allow for possible future ballots-by-email) -------------+||||
        James Farrar         james.sfgiants22.dgtd.freeserve.co.uk   YYYAY
        Toby Speight Toby.hpus.Speight.streapadair.freeserve.co.uk   YYYYN
               Raven               Raven.arpeggio.eenc.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
     Richard Clayton                      richard.turnpike.gid.com   NNYYN
        Sarah Reeson                         sarah.gubbins.iit.net   YYYYN
                Tony                 tony.tagman.ghdlp.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
      Alex D. Baxter            alex-news.wpcon.oenone.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
               Jezza           jezza.hotwells.edot.freeserve.co.uk   YYYYY
      Peter Gradwell                       peter.dpbf.gradwell.com   YNYYA
      Peter Sullivan               peter.manorcon.sbei.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
       Ross Hamilton                          rossh.clara.sydm.net   YYYYY
               T Lee                           tfl.lsaeh.psp.co.uk   YNNYN
         Tony Towers                    tony.oefm.cats.tele2.co.uk   YYYYY
        Marc Donovan                  donovan.dial.rebbu.pipex.com   YYYYY
         Dave Mayall             david.mayall.asgsi.ukonline.co.uk   YYYYN
                 {R}                  corixia.nstmg.dial.pipex.com   YYYYY
   Brett Paul Dunbar             brett.dimetrodon.mcoe.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
         Tobias Erle                vote-uk.kholdan.snafu.mikld.de   NNNNN
        Barry Salter             ukvotes.salterg.fpdep.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
         Mark Goodge                    mark.lisg.good-stuff.co.uk   YYYYY
           Phil Wade                     philwade.epaa.bigfoot.com   YYYYY
      Paul Bolchover                    pb10003.casy.cus.cam.ac.uk   NYYYY
      Brian Cockburn                   brian.cockburn.san.hkan.com   YYYYY
      David Damerell         damerell.vatcr.chiark.greenend.org.uk   YYYYN
      Neil Fernandez                   ncf.borve.fflpi.demon.co.uk   YAYNY
      Kevin Andreoli            kevin.cdyks.andreoli.ukgateway.net   YYYYN
         Tony Walton                   tony.nblb.walton.uk.sun.com   NNYYY
     Charles Lindsey                      chl.clw.bdg.cs.man.ac.uk   YYYYN
        Helge Nareid               h.nareid.nareid.hpe.demon.co.uk   YAYYY
          Tim Forcer                      tmf.akvm.ecs.soton.ac.uk   YYYYY
        Claire Speed                        c.rdly.speed.mcc.ac.uk   YYYYA
           John Hill               john.rfn.yclept.freeserve.co.uk   YYYYY
         Alex Dawson                      a.dawson.elye.virgin.net   NNYYN
           Ben Whyte           peperami.whyteb.nje.freeserve.co.uk   Y-YYY
                Iain                 iain.les.deepsea.force9.co.uk   NNYYY
       Denis McMahon               denis.pickaxe.pctcv.demon.co.uk   YYYYN
        Nigel Ashton                nigel.uerpl.ashton.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
                Andy                   andy.anp.ananam.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
         Neil Irving       postmaster.gdlti.neilirving.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
          Steve Dodd                     dirk.loth.wss.demon.co.uk   YYYAA
  Paul M. Hutchinson                        pmh.classicfm.mpip.net   YYYYA
              robbie                        robbie.arrakis.hlrd.nu   YYAYA
        Duncan Dewar              duncan.mige.brandane.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
        Andy Mabbett           andy.cllo.pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
        Mike Fleming                mike.eiwbf.tauzero.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
         James Coupe                  james.obeah.tebn.demon.co.uk   YYYYN
          Iain Bowen               alaric.harlech.aihe.demon.co.uk   YYYYA
         Alan Rayner                    alanr.sdbag.lightnet.co.uk   NYNYY
       John Robinson                 john.thebeard.tat.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
         Peter Parry                  peter.dra.wppltd.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
            J M Kemp                    jas.lwy.jmkemp.demon.co.uk   NYYNY
         Kate L Pugh                       kake.ox.compsoc.nnn.net   YYYYN
          Jon Harley                  J.W.Harley.avs.warwick.ac.uk   YYYYY
        James Farrar        james.sfgiants22.yttgh.freeserve.co.uk   YYYYA
              squire               squire.iwl.bryhod99.demon.co.uk   YYYAY
      Craig Cockburn                    craig.scot.fki.demon.co.uk   YYYNN
         Alex Holden                   votes.hhs.alexh.clara.co.uk   YYYYY
        Chris Higham                  chris.higham.ibr.bigfoot.com   YYYYY
    S.W.F. Borthwick                     swfb.bokop.pft.win-uk.net   AYYYY
           Nick Atty                nick.nandj.sgn.freeserve.co.uk   --YY-
          Gary Jones                   gazza.tohj.jones.virgin.net   NYYYY
          simon gray                    simon.spae.star-one.org.uk   YYYYY
        Neil Crellin                         neilc.wallaby.nltp.cc   NNNAA
         Pete Humble                       peet.klaes.dircon.co.uk   NNYYN
         Tim Jackson                 tim_jackson.bigfoot.cpbrw.com   NYYYY
       Anthony Naggs                    amn.ubik.nwdsk.demon.co.uk   NYYYY
           J.Baguley                    jcb.avism.keeu.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
    Herbert Pressler              herbert.pressler.magnet.rntpb.at   YYYNY
         Neil Irving       postmaster.ferag.neilirving.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
       Philip Powell             philip.blencathra.ckp.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
         Dave Sparks          Dave.Sparks.sisyphus.oaw.demon.co.uk   YYYYN
    Chris M. Dickson                 chris.jpe.dickson.demon.co.uk   AAAAA
        Hugh Simmons                hugh.st-ronan.dmis.demon.co.uk   YYYYY
          Phil Clark                  phil.tty.saxmund.demon.co.uk   YYYYA
    Pekka P. Pirinen                   ppp.rfj.pirinen.demon.co.uk   YAYYN
          Paul Leake                   P.nsek.J.Leake.durham.ac.uk   AAYYY
Watman01 (Paul or Paul Anderson)            Watman01.aol.ltblh.com   YYYYN


The following voters sent in ballots with missing name/email address.
Email informing them of this was sent to the From: address in the ballot
mail message, but no further communication was received.  In the third
case the sent email bounced.
        Simon Gradwell
        Charles Hankell

Three other voters were sent similar messages for the same reason and
subsequently submitted corrected ballot forms.


A proposal requires 12 more Yes votes than No votes in order to pass

Proposal A (Allow for possible future ballots-by-email):
        Yes: 60   No: 13  Abstain: 3               PASS

Proposal B (Validity of ballot papers):
        Yes: 61   No: 9   Abstain: 5               PASS

Proposal C (Requirement for formal acknowledgement):
        Yes: 71   No: 4   Abstain: 2               PASS

Proposal D (Disallow freeform votes):
        Yes: 67   No: 5   Abstain: 5               PASS

Proposal E (Removal of optional half-way ack):
        Yes: 48   No: 18  Abstain: 10              PASS


I did note the suggestions in the newsgroups that proposal B should have
been conditional on A and that E had had too much removed (and hence was
not consistent with its own description).  The first of these was an
oversight on my part during the drafting of the ballot, for which I
apologise.  However, if proposal had failed, the proposal B change would
IMV have been useless but harmless.  In the case of proposal E, it has
always been implicit in the uk.* voting process that all votes are
presented together with the results and are not divulged before hand.
Members of UKVOTING are very careful about divulging such information
except as required by our internal checks and procedures.  For these
reasons I took the view that it was not necessary to stop and re-start
the CFV and that voters could cast their ballots as they saw fit on
the proposals as published.


- ----------

Over time the methods of vote taking have evolved from the good old "I
vote for foo group" to a more formal voting slip method. This RFD is
concerned with bringing the procedures up to the current voting method
and removing any ambiguities.

I am mostly proposing changes to part 1 and 6 of the VOTE section as
this is the part of the voting procedures that the voting paper part of
the CFV have to conform to although if my changes to part 1 get adopted
then I feel a new section should be added to clear up an obvious method
of ballot stuffing that may happen, also out of the first RFD a request
for a formalisation of the acknowledgement system was requested.

Also a couple of points have been raised about acknowledgements and I
have included a new rule corresponding to a formal procedure for this.

- ---------------------

The RFD initially just started as a cleanup of the procedures and an
adoption of the formal voting slip. After initial brisk discussion
between members of ukvoting a consensus was formed that if freeform
voting was stopped then a formal method of acknowledgement should be
adopted. It has morphed into an overhaul of the voting procedures with
implications for both the voter and votetaker with additional
responsibilities on both sides. By the time the 4th RFD came round it
was greated with an almost volumous silence so one can only assume that
consensus was reached. After discussion with control/committee this is
now going to a vote.

- ------------------

[Proposal A]

Part 1 says the following about the CFV text.

- --begin quote--
    The CFV shall include

    A summary of the discussion;

    An indication of all differences between the proposal and the latest
    RFD (or a statement that there are none);

    The rationale, the name of the group, the newsgroups line and the
    charter, as in an RFD; alternative versions of some or all of these
    things may be offered; The voting instructions and the ballot form.

- --end quote--

I'd like this to be replaced with the following

- --begin new section--
    The CFV shall include

    A summary of the discussion;

    An indication of all differences between the proposal and the latest
    RFD (or a statement that there are none);

    The rationale, the name of the group, the newsgroups line and the
    charter, as in an RFD; alternative versions of some or all of these
    things may be offered;

    The voting instructions and the ballot form, or alternatively
    instructions on how to obtain a ballot form.

- --end new section--

This would allow the votetaker the option to provide a vote paper either
by autoresponder or by inclusion in the CFV text or manually by mail.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Proposal B]

I would also feel happier about some statement about acknowledgements
were also added especially with respect to getting a vote by
autoresponder or direct from the votetaker.

- --new section--

    10. Where the vote paper has been sent via an autoresponder, or
        direct mail from the votetaker only, only vote papers that have
        been requested by these methods will be counted towards formal
        votes. This is in addition to the sending of an acknowledgement
        of receipt and validity of vote.

- --end new section--

- --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Proposal C]

As was brought up in the 1st RFD the reply sent out by a votetaker is at
the moment not mandated. This has been indicated that it may cause
confusion for a voter if there has been no indication of the validity of
their vote. Also during the second RFD it was thought that
Acknowledgements that show the voter where they have gone wrong would
be a good thing I have altered my text for the new section 11

At the current time the votetaker is responsible for sending a formal
acknowledgement up to three days after receiving a vote. I'd like to
extend this to 5 days but with the provision that the votetaker MUST
respond with a copy of the received vote in the acknowledgement as :-
   a) a reminder of how the person voted.
   b) an indication that all sections of the voting form have been
   filled in correctly.

I am suggesting that the votetaker should send an acknowledgement that
will give the voter an indication of how they have voted. If all voting
requirements have been met this will constitute a formal acknowledgement
otherwise it shall be an indication of how the voter has filled in the
voting form incorrectly. This will not affect the status quo, a voter
must get an formal acknowledgement for their vote to count.

This will require another further section be included

- --begin second new section--
    11. Formal acknowledgements: -

        A votetaker SHALL send a formal acknowledgement within 5 days of
        receiving a vote, this SHALL include
        1) The persons name
        2) The persons e-mail address
        3) An indication of their vote

        If a vote does not contain the required information, the
        acknowledgement SHALL include as much of it as is available,
        plus an indication  that the voter should resubmit his vote.
        It SHOULD be pointed out that the vote has NOT been counted in
        its current incomplete status.

        Any other information is at the votetakers discretion.
- --end second new section--

- - --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Proposal D]

The voting paper and freeform voting

at the moment Part 6 says the following:

- --begin quote--

    Votes SHALL be explicit; they should be of the form "I vote for the
    group foo.bar as proposed" or "I vote against the group foo.bar as
    proposed".  The wording doesn't have to be exact, it just needs to
    be unambiguous. In particular, statements of the form "I would vote
    for this group if..."  should be considered comments only and not
    counted as votes.

- --end quote--

I am proposing that this be replaced with the following

- --begin new passage--

    Votes SHALL be explicit. They SHALL include the voter's name, valid
    e-mail address to which the acknowledgement SHALL be sent, the
    actual vote, which SHALL be done in the method specified in the CFV
    text. The votetaker will determine the validity of a vote with
    respect to the voting instructions. If the votetaker determines that
    a vote is invalid, the votetaker SHOULD inform the voter so as
    specified in section 11.

- --end new passage--

This reflects what is current in the voting methodology - it allows for
multi-option votes and for the CFV saying different things e.g.  put 1,
2, 3 or put A, B, C while not tieing the votetaker down to a specific
wording in the guidelines for voting. It also allows putting the form
of voting more into an area where software parsing of the vote paper
could happen. It also allows for the ack/not ack of a vote.

- --------------------------------------------------------------------

[Proposal E]

Adjustment to Section 3

At the moment part three of the procedures says the following

- --begin quote--

    A repeat of the CFV should be posted half way through the vote, but
    it shall be a repeat of the same CFV on the SAME proposal (see #5
    below). Partial vote results shall NOT be included. It is permitted
    to post a "mass acknowledgement" in which the names of all those
    from whom votes have been received are posted, so long as no
    indication is made of which way anybody voted.

- --end quote--

At the request of another member of ukvoing I'd like to amend it to
remove the mass acknowledgement as it's been used twice in the last
three years if I remember correctly.

- --new text--

    A repeat of the CFV should be posted half way through the vote, but
    it shall be a repeat of the same CFV on the SAME proposal (see #5

- --end newtext--

This is simply the removal of the last sentence


This vote was conducted by a neutral third party member of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on behalf
of the uk.* hierarchy and other 3rd parties.

The rules under which votes for the uk.* hierarchy are taken are posted
regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the following URL:


The UKVoting web pages can be found at http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/

Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv


You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage