Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!diablo.theplanet.net!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!news.clues.com!control.clues.com!not-for-mail From: Molly Mockford Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management Subject: RESULT: Amend Voting Procedures (Various Changes) Followup-To: uk.net.news.management Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 01:14:14 +0100 Message-ID: Sender: Approved: Lines: 648 Xref: sn-us uk.net.news.announce:3235 uk.net.news.config:160479 uk.net.news.management:53108 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ====================================================================== RESULT: Amend Voting Procedures (Various Changes) SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Proposal 1 - "Handling of errors and objections" - Option A wins Proposal 2 - "Information required in the ballot" - Option B wins Proposal 3 - "Voter's Name" - Status Quo wins Proposal 4 - "Multiple Voting" - Option B wins ====================================================================== Voting closed at 23:59:59 BST on Sunday 18th May 2003 Proponent : Charles Lindsey Primary Votetaker: Molly Mockford Secondary Votetaker: David Mahon ====================================================================== Distribution: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.management,uk.net.news.config ====================================================================== The full results follow below in the following order: 1) Information on the ballot 2) Detail of results 3) Individual Vote Details 4) Votetaker's Comments 5) Voting and Appeal Guidelines 6) Rationale and Proposals ====================================================================== 1) INFORMATION ON THE BALLOT 58 messages were received at the voting address during the period of the vote, consisting of: 49 valid and counted votes 6 votes subsequently superseded by the voters 1 rejected vote (see below) 1 test 1 e-mail regarding the vote ====================================================================== 2) DETAIL OF RESULTS: Proposal 1 - "Handling of errors and objections" The three sections included in each option of this proposal are: (i) Incorrect CFVs (ii) Objections during the voting period (iii) Objections to the result There are two options (texts (i) and (iii) are common to both): Option A: (ii) Committee may halt CFV upon appeal Option B: (ii) Only UKVoting may halt CFV upon appeal STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo Option A preferred to Status Quo by 35 votes to 14 (21) Status Quo preferred to Option B by 27 votes to 18 (9) Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 30 votes to 14 (16) Only option A beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, it wins and Stage Two is not necessary. Proposal 2 - "Information required in the ballot" There are two options: Option A: Mandatory questions re voter's identity Option B: Optional questions re voter's identity STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo Option A preferred to Status Quo by 28 votes to 18 (10) Option B preferred to Status Quo by 30 votes to 16 (14) Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 30 votes to 14 (16) Only option B beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, it wins and Stage Two is not necessary. Proposal 3 - "Voter's Name" There are three options: Option A: Any pseudonym allowed for posters and lurkers Option B: Any pseudonym allowed for existing posters only Option C: Pseudonym to be already well-established on Usenet STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo Status Quo preferred to Option A by 27 votes to 19 (8) Status Quo preferred to Option B by 30 votes to 15 (15) Option C preferred to Status Quo by 26 votes to 17 (11) Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 34 votes to 10 (24) No option beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, Status Quo wins and Stage Two is not necessary. Proposal 4 - "Multiple Voting" STAGE ONE - Options compared to Status Quo There are two options: Option A: Take last vote from fraudulent multivoters Option B: Reject all votes from fraudulent multivoters Status Quo preferred to Option A by 22 votes to 21 (1) Option B preferred to Status Quo by 33 votes to 13 (20) Status Quo preferred to Re-Open Discussion by 31 votes to 13 (18) Only Option B beats Status Quo by 12 or more votes. Accordingly, it wins and Stage Two is not necessary. ====================================================================== 3) INDIVIDUAL VOTE DETAILS To make formatting simpler, I have listed the names of the voters first, assigning each of them a number. This number is then repeated against the relevant row of voting details. - ------------------------------ 1 {R} {R} & semolina gro 2 Adam D. Barratt vote+avp+2003-05 & adam-barratt kugro 3 Alan Fleming af & etrigan gro 4 Alan Ford alan & whirlnet kuoc 5 Alan LeHun UKvote & lehun ! clara kuoc 6 Alex Holden voting & alexholden kuoc 7 Anthony Naggs amn & ubik ! demon kuoc 8 Anthony R. Gold bigfoot & davros gro 9 Barry Dorrans barryd & idunno gro 10 Barry Salter ukvotes & salterg ! demon kuoc 11 Brett Paul Dunbar brett ! dunbar & dimetrodon ! demon kuoc 12 Brian Brian & bjforster ! force9 kuoc 13 Charles Bryant xavp ! vote ! ch & chch ! demon kuoc 14 Charles Lindsey chl & clerew ! man kuca 15 Chris Croughton chris & keristor gro 16 Clive Feather xavpvote & davros gro 17 Clive R Robertson voteproc2 & clive kugro 18 Dave Dave & community-spirit ! demon kuoc 19 Dave Mason xavpvote & sarnie kugro 20 Dave Mayall dave & research-group kuoc 21 David Uri daviduri & bigfoot moc 22 Dick Gaughan dickg & dickalba ! demon kuoc 23 fred fred & fredc ! demon kuoc 24 Graham Drabble graham ! drabble & lineone ten 25 Ian Jackson ijackson & chiark ! greenend kugro 26 JBM jpb8 & duke ude 27 Jezza jezza & hotwells ! freeserve kuoc 28 Jonathan Wheeler J ! F ! Wheeler & rl kuca 29 Kevin Andreoli kevin & andreoli kuoc 30 Lt. Cmdr. Jim jim & us-lot gro 31 Mark Eller Marell & ellmar ! demon kuoc 32 Mark Goodge mark & good-stuff kuoc 33 Mike Fleming mike & tauzero kuoc 34 Mike Tullett mtullett & ntlworld moc 35 mysteron mysteron & zetnet kuoc 36 Owen Rees owen ! rees & tesco ten 37 Paul Harper paul & harper ten 38 Pekka P. Pirinen ppp & pirinen ! demon kuoc 39 Pete Aspinall aspen3 & btinternet moc 40 Peter Munn replyhere-use-same-subjectline & pearce-neptune ! demon kuoc 41 Peter Robinson pmrobinson & gmx ten 42 Peter Smyth psmyth & ukf ten 43 Philip Powell philip & blencathra kugro 44 Rob Linham rob_linham & yahoo kuoc 45 squire squireb & bryhod99 ! demon kuoc 46 srcrothers S ! R ! Crothers & rl kuca 47 Steph Peters urcy & sandbenders ! demon kuoc 48 Steve Firth vote & malloc kuoc 49 Tim Sharrock tim & sharrock kugro <-Proposal 3-> A B SQ ROD A B SQ ROD A B C SQ ROD A B SQ ROD 1 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 1 2 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 3 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 - - 1 3 3 1 2 4 4 1 2 - - 4 1 2 3 - - - - - - 1 - - 5 1 4 3 2 2 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 3 2 6 - 1 2 - 1 - 2 - - - 2 1 - - 1 2 - 7 4 2 1 3 1 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 8 1 4 2 3 1 4 3 2 5 4 1 3 2 4 1 3 2 9 1 - - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - 10 1 2 - - 2 1 - - 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 11 1 4 3 2 4 1 3 2 1 2 3 5 4 3 1 4 2 12 1 4 2 3 1 4 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 13 4 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 14 1 4 3 2 3 1 4 2 2 4 1 3 5 2 1 4 3 15 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 4 2 3 4 1 5 1 1 2 3 16 2 4 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 5 5 3 2 2 3 4 1 17 2 1 3 4 1 2 3 4 4 2 1 3 5 1 2 3 4 18 4 2 3 1 1 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 4 1 3 2 19 3 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 20 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 4 5 2 3 4 1 2 3 21 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 3 2 1 5 4 3 1 4 2 22 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 5 4 2 1 3 3 4 1 2 23 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 5 5 5 1 5 4 4 1 4 24 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 3 1 2 5 2 1 3 4 25 1 4 3 2 1 3 4 2 5 4 1 2 3 3 1 2 4 26 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 - 1 - - 27 1 3 2 4 4 1 2 3 1 5 4 2 3 1 3 2 4 28 1 4 2 3 2 1 3 4 2 1 4 3 - 1 3 2 4 29 1 4 2 3 3 1 2 4 4 2 1 3 4 4 1 2 3 30 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 4 1 4 2 3 5 3 4 2 1 31 4 1 3 2 4 3 1 2 3 5 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 32 4 1 2 3 1 4 2 3 5 5 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 33 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 2 3 1 4 5 2 1 3 4 34 1 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 5 2 1 4 3 4 1 2 3 35 4 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 5 5 2 5 4 4 1 4 36 1 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 3 2 1 5 4 1 2 4 3 37 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 2 1 3 4 38 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 4 5 4 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 39 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - 2 - - 40 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 4 5 1 2 3 3 4 1 2 41 1 4 3 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 2 3 4 42 2 3 1 4 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 1 5 3 1 2 4 43 1 3 4 2 1 4 3 2 4 5 1 3 2 2 1 4 3 44 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 5 2 1 4 3 4 1 3 2 45 1 4 4 2 4 1 4 2 1 4 4 2 3 1 4 4 2 46 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - 1 - - - 47 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 5 2 1 3 4 - 1 - 2 48 1 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 4 4 2 3 1 4 2 3 49 1 3 2 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 2 5 3 1 2 3 4 REJECTED VOTE Locoman - vote submitted via anonymous webmail in breach of Instruction (3) of the Standard Voting instructions. The voter was encouraged to re-submit the vote from an acceptable account but, despite discussion of the matter, did not do so. ====================================================================== 4) VOTETAKER'S COMMENTS Due to a problem with the votetaker's mail filters, two votes were bounced because the Subject header spanned more than one line (the filter treated this as a non-printable character). Both voters re- submitted their votes successfully. (If they had not, the originals could have been retrieved from the UKVoting server.) Four voters appeared to cast their vote as though it were a "first past the post" vote. Each of them was e-mailed to remind them that they were entitled to express more detailed preferences; none chose to do so. The great majority of voters had no difficulty in completing the question about the e-mail address they used when posting to Usenet, although a few chose to leave this blank, and it was possible to validate their votes without asking for further information. A small number of voters did not understand the request (a reply of "see my recent posts" is circular logic, since the information is requested specifically in order to identify such posts) and a detailed explanation was sent. ====================================================================== 5) VOTING AND APPEAL GUIDELINES 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 There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted to uk.net.news.announce. Allegations of irregularity should be sent to control@usenet.org.uk ====================================================================== 6) RATIONALE AND PROPOSALS 6.1. RATIONALE The story so far: The previous proponent disappeared in a fit of pique, leaving behind him a mixed bag of proposals. I then stepped in to ensure that these matters (and especially what to do about multivotes) can finally be resolved. Please note that I am doing this in my personal capacity, and not in my capacity as Deputy Control. Proposal 1 addresses who may do what at each stage of the CFV. Initially, the Proponent, the Votetaker and if necessary the Committee have to get the CFV right. Then, once the vote is fully under way, two options are offered: either the Committee has power to halt a vote (and/or restart it), but not to demand changes, or else only UKVoting can halt a vote or deal with objections. However, having said that, I will fight tooth and nail against the 2nd one - in my view it is _essential_ that the Committee be able to halt a vote if the votetaker(s) really does go rogue. And finally, the Committee can (as now) rule on objections during the Result phase. Proposal 2 address the matter of whether questions regarding the voter's previous posts to Usenet are optional or mandatory. Both options are offered. Proposal 3 deals with what sorts of pseudonym a person can vote under (I have removed the former option to require no voting name at all). The principal change remains Proposal 4, which everybody agrees needs to be decided, but with a 50:50 split as to how. It started with fierce discussions arising from multiple votes allegedly submitted during the uk.current-events.post-11-sept vote. It was clear that there were two schools of thought 1. That the last vote submitted by a multivoter should be counted; 2. That all votes submitted by a multivoter should be disallowed; and that the matter would have to be resolved by a formal vote. That still remains the case. Notes: ====== Proposal 1 - "Handling of errors and objections" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If the CFV when first submitted is incorrect in some form, there is provision for it to be sorted out between the parties concerned. Note that this takes place _before_ the procedures for dealing with appeals during the vote kick in. Next, once a vote has started, OPTION A gives the Committee the power to halt it if it is not being conducted in accordance with the rules. It might be restarted (e.g. if it was just some wording in the CFV that needed changing) or it might have to go back to the RFD stage (e.g. if the proponent had made more than "minor" changes). The Committee's power is limited to halting the vote. However, an alternative is provided of allowing it to continue (e.g. with an extended voting period), but only if the votetaker/voting organisation agrees. Alternatively, OPTION B gives sole power for handling objections during the running of the vote to UKVoting. All the Committee can do is to resolve appeals (even leading to voiding the whole vote) _after_ the result is published. Proposal 2 - "Information required in the ballot" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rule 6 is rewritten. The old "Votes SHALL be explicit" wording, which had been emasculated in successive changes, is restored to its original function which is (as in the Big 8 Rules) to make it clear that you vote on the questions as asked, and don't try to "write in" extra conditions or options. Then it lists all the things the voter is *required* to fill in. These always include his "name" (see proposal 3) and a valid email address. Under Option A, they also include questions to identify his previous posts to Usenet (or he affirms that there are none). Under Option B these questions are optional, though it is hoped that the great majority of voters will co-operate by answering them. Finally, there is a sentence to indicate that the votetaker MAY email the voter for further clarifications. Proposal 3 - "Voters Name" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This addresses the issue of "Voters Name" which currently does not have any well defined meaning. It is always the case that the Voter may use his Real Name; it is pseudonyms that are tricky. There are three options. A. Anyone (lurkers included) can use any pseudonym, provided there is no attempt at deception. B. Only non-lurkers can use such pseudonyms. Lurkers must use their Real Name. C. Only previous posters can use pseudonyms, and then those pseudonyms must already be "well-established" on Usenet. Option C is closest to present UKVoting practice. Option A gives the greatest scope for anonymity. Proposal 4 - "Multiple Voting" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This addresses multiple voting. In the first option multiple votes believed to be from a single person are resolved in favour of the last received vote. The alternative viewpoint of discarding all votes where multiple voting is believed to have taken place is also provided. The wording proposed for both these options is an adaptation of the "Big 8" wording. This wording was widely supported in the earlier discussions; observe that it resolves, in the "Big 8" manner, the matter of an email address used by more than one person. END RATIONALE ===================================================================== 6.2. PROPOSALS PROPOSAL 1 - "Handling of errors and objections" - ------------------------------------------------ There are two options (texts (i) and (iii) are common to both) Option A: Committee may halt CFV upon appeal Option B: Only UKVoting may halt CFV upon appeal (i) Incorrect CFVs Both Options ~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the first paragraph of part 1 of the section entitled "The Vote", Which presently reads: If after the discussion following an RFD it becomes necessary to hold a vote, a call for votes (CFV) shall be formulated by a member of UKVoting, acting for and in consultation with the proponent, and mailed to control@usenet.org.uk (as moderator of uk.net.news.announce). If the CFV is in the correct form (see below), Control will post it to all those newsgroups and mailing lists that the latest RFD was posted to. extend the last sentence to include: "...; otherwise, it shall be referred back to the votetaker who, in consultation with the Committee and the proponent as necessary, shall rectify the problem. NOTE: The word "votetaker" above remains whether or not the current proposal "Amend the Voting Procedures (Role of UKVoting)" is accepted. (ii) Objections during the voting period At the end of the section entitled "The Vote" insert a new numbered paragraph: Option A: ~~~~~~~~~ "The votetaker may halt and, if appropriate, restart the Vote if any irregularity becomes apparent. Moreover, in the event of any allegation that the Vote is being conducted in violation of these rules which seems to the Committee to be well founded, the Committee may require such a halt and/or restart. Alternatively (but only with the agreement of the votetaker), it may be allowed to continue after rectification of the problem." Option B: ~~~~~~~~~ "Prior to the publication of the Result, any objection which alleges that the Vote is being conducted in violation of these rules shall be forwarded to the Co-ordinator of UKVoting. The members of UKVoting (excluding any who are the proponent or otherwise directly affected by the vote) shall then be solely responsible for determining whether the vote should be voided, restarted, or allowed to continue with or without alterations." The words "votetaker" and "UKVoting" are to be replaced by "votetaking organisation" if and when the current proposal "Amend the Voting Procedures (Role of UKVoting)" is accepted. (iii) Objections to the result Both Options ~~~~~~~~~~~~ In the existing paragraph 5 in section "The Result", which presently reads: All objections and appeals will be decided by the Committee. Their decisions will be posted to uk.net.news.announce. ADD the words "to the result" after "appeals". PROPOSAL 2 - "Information required in the ballot" - ------------------------------------------------- There are two options. Replace Rule 6 in section "The Vote" with the following: Option A: Mandatory questions re voter's identity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Votes SHALL be explicit answers to the questions as put. They SHALL be submitted on the ballot paper in accordance with the voting instructions and SHALL include, in addition to the actual vote i) The voter's name [as defined below]; ii) The voter's email address, which must be valid since the votetaker will send email to it, and it is to be published in the result; iii) Such information as may be requested for the purpose of identifying that voter's posts to usenet or, alternatively, an affirmation that they do not currently post to usenet. The votetaker will determine the validity of each vote with respect to the voting instructions and MAY seek further clarification from the voter. If the votetaker determines that a vote is invalid, the votetaker SHOULD so inform the voter as specified in section 11. Option B: Optional questions re voter's identity ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Votes SHALL be explicit answers to the questions as put. They SHALL be submitted on the ballot paper in accordance with the voting instructions and SHALL include, in addition to the actual vote i) The voter's name [as defined below]; ii) The voter's email address, which must be valid since the votetaker will send email to it, and it is to be published in the result. They MAY also include such further information as may be requested for the purpose of identifying that voter's posts to usenet or, alternatively, an affirmation that they do not currently post to usenet. The votetaker will determine the validity of each vote with respect to the voting instructions and MAY seek further clarification from the voter. If the votetaker determines that a vote is invalid, the votetaker SHOULD so inform the voter as specified in section 11. The words "[as defined below]" are to be omitted if Proposal 3 fails. Proposal 3 - "Voters Name" - -------------------------- There are three options. Insert the following paragraph at the end of Rule 6 in section "The Vote" (as possibly modified in Proposal 2): Option A: Any pseudonym allowed for posters and lurkers ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The voter's name as submitted on the ballot form SHALL be either their real name or a pseudonym (not necessarily one previously associated with that voter), provided such pseudonym does not appear to have been used with intent to deceive." Option B: Any pseudonym allowed for existing posters only ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The voter's name as submitted on the ballot form SHALL be either their real name or, if they already post to Usenet, a pseudonym (not necessarily one previously associated with that voter on Usenet), provided such pseudonym does not appear to have been used with intent to deceive." Option C: Pseudonym to be already well-established on Usenet ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The voter's name as submitted on the ballot form SHALL be either their real name, or a well-established pseudonym that they have previously used when posting to Usenet, provided such pseudonym does not appear to have been used with intent to deceive." PROPOSAL 4 - "Multiple Voting" - ------------------------------ There are two options. Insert after existing paragraph numbered 4 in section "The Result" the following new paragraph, and renumber the paragraphs in that section of the document appropriately: Option A: Take last vote from fraudulent multivoters ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If multiple votes are submitted using a single email address, only the last one of those votes received by the votetaker within the voting period will be counted, even if that email address is used by more than one person. Where it is believed that several votes have been submitted by one person using multiple email addresses in an attempt to bypass these restrictions, those votes SHALL be resolved in favour of the last one of those votes received by the votetaker within the voting period." Option B: Reject all votes from fraudulent multivoters ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If multiple votes are submitted using a single email address, only the last one of those votes received by the votetaker within the voting period will be counted, even if that email address is used by more than one person. Where it is believed that several votes have been submitted by one person using multiple email addresses in an attempt to bypass these restrictions, those votes SHALL all be rejected." END PROPOSALS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBPtfz1mOfGXkh8vHZAQG0RQP9HfsqfCdrsEWL45CsUD8TM0iErYH/xcbF CaRfUmDPz2dv+5+BvR/RgqOpqx+hi0ya+o3qtWH9Uw3YtG0LROeEEsAr7CkMOjnz 05EM3M0UTje62QXBuYxUIOFjxgw3xPmJ1vQ2X5UnDEQYZpYG0Yf1Agc1URGarDfn r4owv70stdw= =KrM1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----