Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!68.6.19.232.MISMATCH!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!cox.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!news.clues.com!control.clues.com!not-for-mail From: Alex Holden Newsgroups: uk.net.news.announce,uk.net.news.config,uk.net.news.management Subject: RESULT: Amend the Voting Procedures (Role of UKVoting) PASSES (36:13) Followup-To: uk.net.news.management Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:38:41 +0100 Message-ID: Sender: Approved: Lines: 352 Xref: sn-us uk.net.news.announce:3226 uk.net.news.config:160366 uk.net.news.management:52828 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- RESULT: CFV: Amend the Voting Procedures (Role of UKVoting) SUMMARY: Yes beat no by 36 votes to 13, proposal PASSES ======================================================================= Voting closed at 23:59:59 GMT, 19th May 2003 Proponent: David Mahon Votetaker: Alex Holden Secondary Votetaker: Mark Goodge Distribution: uk.net.news.announce uk.net.news.config uk.net.news.management ======================================================================= The full results follow below in the following order: 1) Information on the ballot 2) Results 3) Individual Vote Details 4) Votetaker's Comments 5) Voting and Appeal Guidelines 6) Rationale and Proposal ======================================================================= INFORMATION ON THE BALLOT The CFV opened on the 28th April 2003, and closed at 23:59:59 BST on the 19th May 2003. The vote was conducted under the Guidelines For Group Creation using the Yes/No vote procedure. Voters were asked: Amend the Guidelines as per the PROPOSAL above? The votetaker used the ballot request by email system which utilises the UKVoting mail server to dispatch a ballot paper containing a unique voter ID for every mail received at the ballot request address. The UKVoting mail server shows that 64 mails were sent to the ballot request address. Copies of all 64 mails and a copy of the associated ballot paper sent by autoresponse went to the votetakers. The primary votetaker has compared his archive with the archive stored on the UKVoting server and has found that ballot papers were dispatched for all 64 requests. From these 64 mails, 62 contained valid ballot requests received during the lifetime of the vote. 2 mails were tests sent by the votetaker prior to the opening of the ballot. 50 individuals used their ballot paper and voted. Of the 12 remaining ballot papers, 2 individuals requested a second ballot paper for the same email address, and one individual requested a new ballot paper for a different email address, informing the votetaker that the original ballot paper would not be used, and also included the ballot ID for security and identification purposes. This leaves 9 ballot papers unaccounted for at the close of the vote. After adjusting for repeat requests, based on ballot papers requested and votes received, the turnout is 84.7%. ====================================================================== RESULTS The UKVoting server shows that 53 mails sent to the voting address were received by the UKVoting server. 50 mails contained valid votes, 2 mails were tests by the votetaker and 1 vote was rejected. This vote was subsequently corrected by the voter using his original ballot paper and therefore his vote appears within the results. For the purposes of the count, 50 votes were received. Number of people voting YES: 36 NO: 13 ABSTAIN: 1 Total: 50 YES beat NO by 23 votes. Under the Guidelines for Group Creation there must be 12 more yes votes than no votes. Accordingly this proposal PASSES. ======================================================================= INDIVIDUAL VOTE DETAILS Voters voting "YES" Name Voting Address {R} {R}#semolina~gor Adam D. Barratt vote+pro-voting+2003-04#adam-barratt~gro~ku Alan Fleming af#etrigan~gor Alan Ford alan#whirlnet~oc~ku Anthony Naggs amn#ubik~demon~oc~ku Barry Salter ukvotes#salterg~demon~oc~ku Bill Muskett billn#musketts~gro~ku Brett Paul Dunbar brett~dunbar#dimetrodon~demon~oc~ku Brian Brian#bjforster~force9~oc~ku Carl Inglis cinglis#yoshiwara~gro~ku Charles littlewood~troston#lineone~ten Charles Lindsey chl#clerew~man~ca~ku Clive Feather xpro1#davros~gor Clive R Robertson voteproc#clive~gro~ku David Mahon dmahon_vote_xpro1#amigo~oc~ku Dick Gaughan dickg#dickalba~demon~oc~ku Graham Drabble graham~drabble#lineone~ten Ian Jackson ijackson#chiark~greenend~gro~ku Jezza jezza#hotwells~freeserve~oc~ku Justa Lurker jlurker#bigfoot~moc kqr kqrq#freeuk~moc Lt. Cmdr. Jim jim#us-lot~gor Mike Bristow mike#urgle~moc Mike Fleming mike#tauzero~oc~ku Molly Mockford xpro1#mockfords~clara~oc~ku Owen Rees owen~rees#tesco~ten paul {voter}#watman~clara~oc~ku Paul Carpenter paul#pcserv~demon~oc~ku Paul Harper paul#harper~ten Pete The Gardener pete_the_gardener#hotmail~moc Peter Munn pmunnsub#pearce-neptune~demon~oc~ku Peter Robinson pmrobinson#gmx~ten Rob Linham rob_linham#yahoo~oc~ku Scott Taylor taylorscott67#yahoo~oc~ku squire squireb#bryhod99~demon~oc~ku Steve Firth vote#malloc~oc~ku Total 36 Voters voting "NO" Name Voting Address ace.agincourt ace~agincourt#btinternet~moc Anthony R. Gold bigfoot#davros~gor Dave Dave#community-spirit~demon~oc~ku Dave Mason xpro1#sarnie~gro~ku Dave Mayall dave#research-group~oc~ku fred fred#fredc~demon~oc~ku John Waterfoot john#waterfoot~gor Mark Eller Marell#ellmar~demon~oc~ku mysteron mysteron#zetnet~oc~ku Pete Fenelon pete#fenelon~moc Peter Smyth p~smyth#ucl~ca~ku Richard Clayton richard#highwayman~moc Steph Peters urcy#sandbenders~demon~oc~ku Total 13 Voters who indicated "ABSTAIN" Name Voting Address Aspen3 aspen3#btinternet~moc Total 1 Votes received: 50 Ballot Paper Cross-Check Add Votes not received (9) Total: 59 voters or ballot requesters Add repeat ballot requests (3) = 62 ballot papers ======================================================================= VOTETAKER'S COMMENTS A relatively straightforward vote to count. This was my first vote using the new ballot request system now employed by UKVoting. Almost one in five ballot papers requested were not used. No bounces were received, either for ballot papers or for vote acknowledgements. Identity Verification ===================== The ballot paper contained space for voters to enter the email address that they normally use when posting to usenet. Voters had the option of entering that address, entering the word "none" to signify that they did not post to usenet, or simply to leave that space blank, as the question was optional. Voters have had the opportunity to address this issue in a separate CFV being handled by Molly Mockford (voting on that CFV has closed,) and so this is going to be the last set of results to be issued before the results of that CFV are known. The results of that CFV may well change the way UKVoting handles the identity verification question. So how did the electorate handle the identity question in this vote? On the surface, it appears that the vast majority of voters found the revised voting instructions easy to follow. I write that as 46 from 50 voters entered an email address for question 2 straight off. Two people from 50 left the question blank. Under the current voting instructions, that's fine. It's an optional question. One of those two was a Committee member. Before anybody shouts, I'm naming no names, and I'm not going to say if they were elected, co-opted or permanent members. One person (out of 50) entered "see typical postings." This person was also a Committee member. The question was for an email address. Not a full history, but one address. I was able to verify the identity of this individual by other means, so I allowed the vote. Voters should be aware that if they vote using a domain name that more than one person votes from, "see typical postings" is not helpful to the votetaker, it becomes a hinderance. One person entered the word "none" for question 2; in that they stated that they do not post to usenet. I rejected this vote because a false declaration had been made; the person who posted the vote has a long and large posting history. After discussion by email, the person in question voted in accordance with the instructions, and although the email address the voter used in his revised ballot did not match what I expected to see, I counted his revised vote. The person in question stated in email that there is nothing in the voting instructions that says that they have to answer questions truthfully. Ballots within uk.* are held to guage the true opinion of the electorate, they are not exercises in creative writing. I find it interesting that 92% of voters answered the question with no problems, and of the tiny minority of those who did not answer the question as asked first time, 50% were members of the UK Usenet Committee. For the avoidance of doubt, I should add that am not suggesting that the Committee members highlighted were deliberately trying to disrupt the vote, and a greater number of Committee members answered question 2 with an email address. ======================================================================= VOTING AND APPEAL GUIDELINES This vote was conducted by two neutral third party members 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. ======================================================================= RATIONALE When a vote is called for, the organisation called UKVoting is approached and a votetaker is appointed from their ranks. Once that votetaker has been appointed, UKVoting has no further control over the vote, nor the votetaker assigned to it. Should there be a problem with a vote, or a votetaker, during vote proceedings there is nothing that can be done by anyone until the results are produced. The committee can, if it sees fit, overturn or amend the vote results after they have been published. Should a votetaker disappear, for whatever reason, during a vote, the guidelines do not give UKVoting the ability to continue using an alternate votetaker despite it's facilities to do so. There have recently been calls for UKVoting to act with regard to a CFV. Even if it desperately wanted to act, UKVoting does not obviously have the power to do anything. UKVoting can not order a votetaker to change a CFV text nor can it change a votetaker assigned to a CFV. Even if criticism levelled at a single votetaker were justified (and I am not saying that any is, or has been) any criticism aimed at UKVoting for failing to act against a votetaker would remain completely unjustified. UKVoting cannot act. Even if UKVoting were to evict a member from it's ranks, the evicted member would still, according to the present guidelines, have control of any ongoing vote. I therefore propose altering the voting document to give control of a vote over to the voting organisation rather than to an individual that is appointed by it. The organisation could then act to change votetakers during a vote, or to make alterations to the running of a vote, if it proved necessary. PROPOSAL Change all occurrences in VOTING PROCEDURES WITHIN THE UK HIERARCHY of: "the votetaker" to "the votetaking organisation" "the vote-taker" to "the votetaking organisation" "a votetaker" to "the votetaking organisation" "the votetakers" to "the votetaking organisation's" "the vote-taker's machine" to "the votetaking organisation's server" Change "Votes should be conducted by a third party, not involved with the topic. To this end a panel of volunteer vote takers has been set up, accessible by sending email to ukvoting@usenet.org.uk." to read "Votes should be conducted by a third party, not involved with the topic. The current group(s) of volunteer votetakers used for votes within the uk.* hierarchy, together with their email address(es) are: UKVoting: ukvoting@usenet.org.uk" Any other references to the email address of UKVoting in all uk usenet management documents should also be changed to "ukvoting@ukvoting.org.uk" In "THE UK USENET COMMITTEE" change: "If the number of persons nominated exceeds the number of vacancies, an independent votetaker(s) shall be appointed by UKVoting, and they shall be responsible for conducting a vote ..." to read "If the number of persons nominated exceeds the number of vacancies the votetaking organisation shall be responsible for conducting an independent vote ..." END PROPOSAL ======================================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBPtIm8WOfGXkh8vHZAQEU2AP/bzao3W10T9DzjHxBC6lWVZNl2Tc+yll5 WuOgt74ZJVPhLC91FTajY6p+wuRuqoFZFb7Z0b2bfqEVCYdrVO2Y4Nw7lHudccna Ha8wZge7HYHRdQh3yQNZUl9b4ePBwP7vrHBYmOipmNhSIiivT/Ss5zDUp6GOC+dX mBNEElyvajM= =/YiF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----