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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
RESULT OF CALL FOR VOTES
Change to the Voting Procedures within the UK Hierarchy
SUMMARY OF RESULT: All proposals PASS
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)
Distribution:
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.net.news.management
==========================================================================
BALLOTS CAST
============
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
INVALID BALLOTS
===============
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
Six
Three other voters were sent similar messages for the same reason and
subsequently submitted corrected ballot forms.
RESULTS
=======
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
========================================================================
VOTETAKER'S REMARKS
===================
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.
========================================================================
RATIONALE:
- ----------
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.
========================================================================
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
- ---------------------
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.
========================================================================
AMENDED PROCEDURES
- ------------------
[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
accordingly.
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
below).
- --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:
ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting
The UKVoting web pages can be found at http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBN/T3pmOfGXkh8vHZAQHskwQAg+J/QbsopLgw6vkUXzRuEdSonL1aUGzq
Cth5r4Uzte8MfdQELXlJRsw29FVPfxnIAnn01KUz9PCkW2s5ZdL8L4P3RmQSvsNW
PZOVhfm6hXQkVqQhIx38XHqOn3zynKwjL1GEyazyt4K7FL5XPeBgvVXoMx/TuCHJ
iT2jrtjT/Xo=
=iMeO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You can also see the raw article.
Back ot the UKVoting homepage
