Voting procedure

[Judith]

I, like others, are concerned about the publishing of private information and
would like to suggest a change to the procedure which necessitates such
information to be published.

Please could you tell me where this requirement is defined, so that I may
consider raising an RFD. (I suppose the CFV will have to be under the old
rules by definition )

[Alan LeHun]

In article <mce6j81o9umvq78lr...@4ax.com>, jmsmith2011
@hotmail.co.uk says...

Is http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html what you are looking for? In
"The Result" section?

For all the times you have been pointed to the documents at
usenet.org.uk I am somewhat worried by your apparent inability to parse
any pertinent information from them. Or maybe you're just not genuinely
interested enough to bother looking.



--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

[Judith]

Thank you for the pointer and also your concern at my ability to find what I am
looking.

I can assure you that I am very interested. I had used Google to search for
the phrase " "Under this new system" which was quoted to see where it was
defined: and of course I could not find it there. I had seen the sentence "It
shall include the E-mail addresses and the names of all the voters," - but I
was looking for the rest of the current procedure - and all this about using
different email addresses and what would be published and what wouldn't etc.

Perhaps you are incorrect and the procedure which was applied is defined
somewhere else - as I just cannot find it.

(I have added uk.net.news.moderation - but do not know the correct place to
discuss this issue so have not set followups)

[mgo...@outlook.com]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:16:12 -0000, Alan LeHun <t...@reply.to> wrote:

> For all the times you have been pointed to the documents at
> usenet.org.uk I am somewhat worried by your apparent inability to
parse
> any pertinent information from them. Or maybe you're just not
genuinely
> interested enough to bother looking.

You misunderstand.

Judith does not want to know where it is, it doesn't even want to
have it changed.

What it wants is for someone - anyone - to talk to it. About
anything.

"Please sir, tell me where the thermostat is again?"

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:16:12 -0000, Alan LeHun put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Although, to be fair, the official website is not exactly a stellar example
of design and usability, and the guidelines themselves could do with a
Plain English makeover. There's nothing I can do about the former, but I
have toyed with the idea of addressing the latter. Part of the problem,
though, is that the need to avoid ambiguity often has to take precedence
over clarity.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

[Barry Salter]

On 03/03/2013 12:38, Judith wrote:

> I can assure you that I am very interested. I had used Google to search for
> the phrase " "Under this new system" which was quoted to see where it was
> defined: and of course I could not find it there. I had seen the sentence "It
> shall include the E-mail addresses and the names of all the voters," - but I
> was looking for the rest of the current procedure - and all this about using
> different email addresses and what would be published and what wouldn't etc.

It's in the template CFV and Ballot Paper which can be found in the
"Resources for Votetakers" section on the UKVoting website. Admittedly
it's not a "new" system any more, having been in place for 10 years.

The requirement to include names and addresses is laid down in the
Voting Procedures. The two exceptions to linking these to how people
voted being Committee Elections and Motions of No Confidence.

Of course, we could go the way of the "Big 8" and scrap public voting
altogether, and just have the Committee decide on group creation, etc.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:16:05 +0000, Barry Salter put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On 03/03/2013 12:38, Judith wrote:
>
>> I can assure you that I am very interested. I had used Google to search for
>> the phrase " "Under this new system" which was quoted to see where it was
>> defined: and of course I could not find it there. I had seen the sentence "It
>> shall include the E-mail addresses and the names of all the voters," - but I
>> was looking for the rest of the current procedure - and all this about using
>> different email addresses and what would be published and what wouldn't etc.
>
>It's in the template CFV and Ballot Paper which can be found in the
>"Resources for Votetakers" section on the UKVoting website. Admittedly
>it's not a "new" system any more, having been in place for 10 years.

Yes, I think that, like "New Road Layout" often does, it has lingered well
beyond the point at which that which it describes can reasonably be
described as "new" :-)

[george.sta...@outlook.com]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 08:45:23 -0400, mgo...@outlook.com <mgo...@outlook.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>
>"Please sir, tell me where the thermostat is again?"

Hello Sonny - you really want to watch what you say you know. Things can come
back and really bite you on the arse.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.management, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

>Although, to be fair, the official website is not exactly a stellar example
>of design and usability, and the guidelines themselves could do with a
>Plain English makeover. There's nothing I can do about the former, but I
>have toyed with the idea of addressing the latter. Part of the problem,
>though, is that the need to avoid ambiguity often has to take precedence
>over clarity.

Indeed, just in case someone decides to come along and nit pick or push at
all the edge cases, just to see what happens.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Judith]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:22:27 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 12:16:12 -0000, Alan LeHun put finger to keyboard and
>typed:

<snip>

>>For all the times you have been pointed to the documents at
>>usenet.org.uk I am somewhat worried by your apparent inability to parse
>>any pertinent information from them. Or maybe you're just not genuinely
>>interested enough to bother looking.
>
>Although, to be fair, the official website is not exactly a stellar example
>of design and usability, and the guidelines themselves could do with a
>Plain English makeover. There's nothing I can do about the former, but I
>have toyed with the idea of addressing the latter. Part of the problem,
>though, is that the need to avoid ambiguity often has to take precedence
>over clarity.
>
>Mark

I totally agree with you.

However - I am pretty sure that some of the things that have been adopted by
the committee/uk.voting/control mean that the official guidelines are now not
followed.

Why don't the committee/uk.voting/control each suggest to you as a facilitator
what changes they think are needed - and then when there is a reasonable con
census view (or even options) one of you put forward an RFD for the general
public?

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:55:44 +0000, Judith wrote...

> Why don't the committee/uk.voting/control each suggest to you as a
facilitator
> what changes they think are needed - and then when there is a reasonable con
> census view (or even options) one of you put forward an RFD for the general
> public?

If we are seeking a consensus, I think the most important aspect is that
people who are suggesting that changes are required need to take part.
You can't expect the Committee or UKVoting to address your concerns if
you don't have any specific changes to offer them.

I've made a specific (and very simple) suggestion in unn.moderation, and
copied it to UKVoting by email. Why don't you do likewise, Judith?

Message-ID: <MPG.2b9d7d26b...@text.usenet.plus.net>

--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-03-03 16:10:12 +0000, Tim Jackson said:

> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:55:44 +0000, Judith wrote...
>
>> Why don't the committee/uk.voting/control each suggest to you as a
> facilitator
>> what changes they think are needed - and then when there is a reasonable con
>> census view (or even options) one of you put forward an RFD for the general
>> public?
>
> If we are seeking a consensus, I think the most important aspect is that
> people who are suggesting that changes are required need to take part.
> You can't expect the Committee or UKVoting to address your concerns if
> you don't have any specific changes to offer them.
>
> I've made a specific (and very simple) suggestion in unn.moderation, and
> copied it to UKVoting by email. Why don't you do likewise, Judith?
>
> Message-ID: <MPG.2b9d7d26b...@text.usenet.plus.net>

Possibly the suggestion should have been made in this group - do you
want to repeat it here?

--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:53:58 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

>In uk.net.news.management, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Although, to be fair, the official website is not exactly a stellar example
>>of design and usability, and the guidelines themselves could do with a
>>Plain English makeover. There's nothing I can do about the former, but I
>>have toyed with the idea of addressing the latter. Part of the problem,
>>though, is that the need to avoid ambiguity often has to take precedence
>>over clarity.
>
>Indeed, just in case someone decides to come along and nit pick or push at
>all the edge cases, just to see what happens.

Rubbish - it is not pushing at edge cases:

The uk.voting guidelines clearly state:

It <the result> shall include the E-mail addresses and the names of all the
voters, together with which way each one voted, so that the results can be
verified.

uk.voting have used their initiative and do not require the address which is
used for voting to be published.

Whilst I can see why they did that and have sympathy for it - I do not think
that they should have done so.

Either the official guidelines or wrong and need changing (what I favour) - or
uk.voting should adhere to them.

Given that you are such a stickler for control - and the need to follow the
guidelines to the letter I am surprised that you cannot see this.

[Judith]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:16:05 +0000, Barry Salter <sal...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

In your opinion does the current voting procedure accord with the official
guidelines (which I assume take precedence over anything on the UKVoting
web-site)

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.management, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:53:58 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In uk.net.news.management, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Although, to be fair, the official website is not exactly a stellar example
>>>of design and usability, and the guidelines themselves could do with a
>>>Plain English makeover. There's nothing I can do about the former, but I
>>>have toyed with the idea of addressing the latter. Part of the problem,
>>>though, is that the need to avoid ambiguity often has to take precedence
>>>over clarity.
>>
>>Indeed, just in case someone decides to come along and nit pick or push at
>>all the edge cases, just to see what happens.
>
>
>Rubbish - it is not pushing at edge cases:

Touchy. You appear to think I was talking about you? Not everyone is
always talking about you.

>Whilst I can see why they did that and have sympathy for it - I do not think
>that they should have done so.

Then you should discuss it with them. Or, you can continue to simply stomp
your feet and hope someone else does the work for you.

>Given that you are such a stickler for control - and the need to follow the
>guidelines to the letter I am surprised that you cannot see this.

Your continually surprised by things that most people just accept as
normal. That's not my problem, it's yours.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2013-03-03, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The uk.voting guidelines clearly state:
>
> It <the result> shall include the E-mail addresses and the names of all the
> voters, together with which way each one voted, so that the results can be
> verified.
>
> uk.voting have used their initiative and do not require the address which is
> used for voting to be published.

What are you talking about?

[Judith]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:02:25 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

A simple question to you in your capacity of Control:

Do you think that the current procedures used to vote by uk.voting of
publishing or not publishing the email address of a voter are in agreement with
the official voting guidelines?

If not: is it Control's intention to do anything about it?

[Percy Picacity]

The voting information says you can put in a 'reply-to' address and
have that published instead of your from address. However, as long as
the votetaker checks that the 'reply-to' address is valid I do not see
this as a deviation from the guidelines - the point of which is to link
the vote with a valid, deliverable email address that the voter has
access to. I can see people may have a problem if the mail server they
use for sending narrow-mindedly insists on an email 'from' address that
is not the one they want to receive things on.


--

Percy Picacity

[Judith]

I apologise - I must have misunderstood - I am not very good on these sort of
formal matters. I thought that people could opt out (as required by the
official guidelines) of having the email address they use to vote not
published.

I am sorry I misunderstood.

[Judith]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 17:16:12 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

The guidelines very clearly state:

"It shall include the E-mail addresses" - the only email addresses mentioned
in the guidelines are the ones to which the ballot paper is sent - and which is
actually used to cast the vote.

That is quite clear and unambiguous in the official guidelines.

There is absolutely no other way of interpreting what is said.

[Owen Rees]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:30:29 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in <9k17j8tuujv0ocvul...@4ax.com>:

>The guidelines very clearly state:
>
>"It shall include the E-mail addresses" - the only email addresses mentioned
>in the guidelines are the ones to which the ballot paper is sent - and which is
>actually used to cast the vote.
>
>That is quite clear and unambiguous in the official guidelines.
>
>There is absolutely no other way of interpreting what is said.

No. The guidelines do not mention the email address to which the vote
paper has been sent via an autoresponder, or direct mail from the
votetaking organisation. The guidelines say only that the voter's email
address must be valid since the votetaker will send email to it, and it
is to be published in the result.

[Roland Perry]

In message <4nq6j81bp3g192g64...@news.markshouse.net>, at
15:26:19 on Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>It's in the template CFV and Ballot Paper which can be found in the
>>"Resources for Votetakers" section on the UKVoting website. Admittedly
>>it's not a "new" system any more, having been in place for 10 years.
>
>Yes, I think that, like "New Road Layout" often does, it has lingered well
>beyond the point at which that which it describes can reasonably be
>described as "new" :-)

New Court in Trinity College Cambridge was opened in 1825. In keeping
with tradition, Cambridge has many "new roundabout/bus lane/etc") signs
that are well over ten years old. Having enquired, the answer is that
there's no budget to take them down.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:58:11 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Not to mention all those towns and cities called Newport, Newcastle, etc.

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 16:44:27 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote...

True, but it was a response to a post in unn.moderation.


[Quote] ========================================

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 15:12:24 +0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens wrote...

> I'm sorry, but right there at the top of the ballot paper, which, even
> if a voter is only going to read one part of the whole email, surely
> has to be the part that they are most likely to read, it says:
>
> Your vote will be recorded in the results as from:
> Email: $$FROM$$
>
> and it is also extremely clear that the results will be published.
> I find it difficult to imagine how this could be made any more clear.

It would be clearer if you changed the one word "recorded" to
"published". The reader then wouldn't have to refer to other parts of a
long complex document to be certain what was intended.

Tony has pointed out that I am free to suggest wording changes to
UKVoting. Unfortunately I don't have the time (and probably not the
inclination) to go through the entire document, but please consider this
suggestion. Copied by email to UKVoting.

[End quote] ========================================

[Tim Jackson]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 16:50:52 +0000, Judith wrote...

>
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:53:58 +0000, Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In uk.net.news.management, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >

> >> Part of the problem,
> >>though, is that the need to avoid ambiguity often has to take precedence
> >>over clarity.
> >
> >Indeed, just in case someone decides to come along and nit pick or push at
> >all the edge cases, just to see what happens.
>
>
> Rubbish - it is not pushing at edge cases:
>
> The uk.voting guidelines clearly state:
>
> It <the result> shall include the E-mail addresses and the names of all the
> voters, together with which way each one voted, so that the results can be
> verified.

That'll be a "whoosh" then.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-03-03, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <4nq6j81bp3g192g64...@news.markshouse.net>, at
> 15:26:19 on Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>It's in the template CFV and Ballot Paper which can be found in the
>>>"Resources for Votetakers" section on the UKVoting website. Admittedly
>>>it's not a "new" system any more, having been in place for 10 years.
>>
>>Yes, I think that, like "New Road Layout" often does, it has lingered well
>>beyond the point at which that which it describes can reasonably be
>>described as "new" :-)

Well, if there isn't a newer layout, that's still the new one.

> New Court in Trinity College Cambridge was opened in 1825. In keeping
> with tradition, Cambridge has many "new roundabout/bus lane/etc") signs
> that are well over ten years old. Having enquired, the answer is that
> there's no budget to take them down.

RFD rename "Pont Neuf"

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 20:58:11 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

ITYF there's many a New Inn that is far from.
--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

[Dr J R Stockton]

In uk.net.news.management message <+DPGyWGj...@perry.co.uk>, Sun, 3
Mar 2013 20:58:11, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted:

A more capable Council would have arranged for the signs to bear the
(approximate) date of erection, ISO 8601 format, in sufficiently large
writing, and not to include the word "new".

If the Council were to consult the local Department of Engineering, it
could no doubt be provided, at a reasonable price, with a design for
one-person-operated tricycle-mounted device for obliterating the word
"new" after a suitable interval. And the Department of Chemistry could
probably advise on the provision of a self-obliterating "new".

But before tackling those signs, the case of the New Forest should be
attended to, perhaps by revision to the "Fairly New Forest".

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. E-mail, see Home Page. Turnpike v6.05.
Website <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[paul]

x-post removed; to uk.net.news.management only

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:58:11 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <4nq6j81bp3g192g64...@news.markshouse.net>, at
>15:26:19 on Sun, 3 Mar 2013, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>It's in the template CFV and Ballot Paper which can be found in the
>>>"Resources for Votetakers" section on the UKVoting website. Admittedly
>>>it's not a "new" system any more, having been in place for 10 years.
>>Yes, I think that, like "New Road Layout" often does, it has lingered well
>>beyond the point at which that which it describes can reasonably be
>>described as "new" :-)
>

>New Court in Trinity College Cambridge was opened in 1825. [...]

The adjective gives a goodle sense of historical perspective: IIRC
New College, Oxford was founded in 1379; known even in C.14th as 'New'
to distinguish it from the other Oxford dedicated to Virgin Mary, Oriel.

--
paul (C) © 2013 is mine

[Roland Perry]

In message <J6iEl2EM...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, at
13:39:24 on Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Dr J R Stockton
<repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> remarked:

>>>Yes, I think that, like "New Road Layout" often does, it has lingered well
>>>beyond the point at which that which it describes can reasonably be
>>>described as "new" :-)
>

>A more capable Council would have arranged for the signs to bear the
>(approximate) date of erection, ISO 8601 format, in sufficiently large
>writing, and not to include the word "new".

It seems to be a countrywide thing, and not restricted to particular
councils.

The most egregious example I know is in a cul-de-sac leading [almost]
only to a supermarket car park. When they built the supermarket there
they also installed traffic lights to control to flow onto the main
road. There's a sign on the hundred yards of clear, wide, road between
the car park exit and the traffic lights saying "New Traffic Lights
ahead".

No customers of the supermarket could ever have used that road *without*
the traffic lights being there.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 08:47:15 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Unless they were staff of, or visitors to, the businesses which were
previously located on that road, or the sewage works, or the park at the
end of it. And that is likely to be a significant number of users of the
road both previously and currently. (I'm assuming you're referring to
Cresswells Lane here).

[Roland Perry]

In message <4rncj8po31pvmphbd...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:20:32 on Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:

>>No customers of the supermarket could ever have used that road *without*
>>the traffic lights being there.
>
>Unless they were staff of, or visitors to, the businesses which were
>previously located on that road, or the sewage works, or the park at the
>end of it. And that is likely to be a significant number of users of the
>road both previously and currently. (I'm assuming you're referring to
>Cresswells Lane here).

I go to the supermarket several time a week (on foot) and have never
ever seen a vehicle either come or go beyond the Sainsbury's car park.

And even if there were a few, previously, don't you think they'll have
noticed the year-long construction of the supermarket and the
months-long widening of the road and creation of the junction. If they
that that unobservant do we really think a small red notice is going to
make any difference to their awareness of a set of traffic lights 50ft
ahead of them?
--
Roland Perry

[Barry Salter]

On 03/03/2013 16:58, Judith wrote:

> In your opinion does the current voting procedure accord with the official
> guidelines (which I assume take precedence over anything on the UKVoting
> web-site)
>

I am satisfied that the voting instructions on the CFV and Ballot Paper
are in accordance with the Voting Procedures, yes. I would also assume
that the uk.* community in general is similarly satisfied, given
UKVoting have used the same procedures for the past ten years without
issues being formally raised as to their validity (or otherwise).

[Clive D. W. Feather]

In message <J6iEl2EM...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>, Dr J R

Stockton <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>A more capable Council would have arranged for the signs to bear the
>(approximate) date of erection, ISO 8601 format, in sufficiently large
>writing, and not to include the word "new".

What actually annoys me is the "road works for 17 weeks from 12th
January" type signs. My mental arithmetic isn't good enough to work out
when that period ends while trying to concentrate on the rest of my
driving.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>

[John Hall]

In article <H8QjE1vz...@romana.davros.org>,

Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> writes:
>
>What actually annoys me is the "road works for 17 weeks from 12th
>January" type signs. My mental arithmetic isn't good enough to
>work out when that period ends while trying to concentrate on the
>rest of my driving.
>

Perhaps they are relying on that, and hoping that as a consequence you
won't notice if it overruns by a month or two.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

[Roland Perry]

In message <H8QjE1vz...@romana.davros.org>, at 14:54:43 on Wed, 13
Mar 2013, Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> remarked:

>What actually annoys me is the "road works for 17 weeks from 12th
>January" type signs. My mental arithmetic isn't good enough to work out
>when that period ends while trying to concentrate on the rest of my
>driving.

Or "delays until 2015", which presumably doesn't mean quarter past
eight, nor every hour of every day for the next two years.
--
Roland Perry

[Anonymous]

In article <pYkYF1K6...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid>

John Hall <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <H8QjE1vz...@romana.davros.org>,
> Clive D. W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> writes:
> >
> >What actually annoys me is the "road works for 17 weeks from 12th
> >January" type signs. My mental arithmetic isn't good enough to
> >work out when that period ends while trying to concentrate on the
> >rest of my driving.
> >
>
> Perhaps they are relying on that, and hoping that as a consequence you
> won't notice if it overruns by a month or two.

Buddha!