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