UKVoting Statement - Ian Jackson
Robert Felton
UKVoting Statement - Ian Jackson
UKVoting has received a high number of complaints about the selection of
Ian Jackson as a votetaker. These complaints can be split into two camps
i) objections to his proposals posted in uk.net.news.management;
ii) objections to him as a votetaker based on his attitude during the
discussion of those proposals.
Within the debate which has taken place within uk.net.news.management the
following points need to be noted:
1) the defence of such heavily criticised proposals has damaged the name
of UKVoting.
2) UKVoting operates as a independent organisation with the ability to
control its own procedures, as long as they met the voting guidelines.
And in the belief of UKVoting this position should be able to continue
whilst we have the support of the majority of the uk.* community.
3) UKVoting operates as a body of consensus through discussion and debate,
with the Co-Ordinator having to make a final decision on the odd
occasion.
4) The procedures of UKVoting have been established in their current form
now for at least 18 months, and they work fine 99% of the time. And
change should be only be implemented following discussion with
UKVoting, and if felt necessary - the uk.* community.
5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
Following a lengthy and detailed discussion on the UKVoting mailing list
and within UNNM, and as UKVoting Co-Ordinator, I have decided that Ian
Jackson can no longer continue as a member of UKVoting.
Therefore UKVoting currently stands at the following volunteers:
Rob Felton - Co-Ordinator
Rob Irvine - Deputy Co-Ordinator
Malcolm Mladenovic - Assistant Deputy Co-Ordinator
Chris M. Dickson
Jon Ribbens - UKVoting Mailing List Master & Webmaster
Brian Jones
Barry Salter
Alan Ford
Mark Goodge
Richard Ashton
Molly Mockford
Thanks
Swinny - Rob Felton
Co-Ordinator, UKVoting (mailto:ukvo...@ukvoting.org.uk)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOP0G6mOfGXkh8vHZAQFhjAP/Z6IUTfNAJtA3aTrMmjxmcS04873SWD4v
CsDKDgOULbO5B3MJV1VcbTjqDmdBJbTTKwO/wjo5AUVUf7EYQ+REhS9/7H0T80x1
GsORrCCwlclHiVyRzAp6xzypQQzWXu5x4JWEJm2STfox6YovHPIIT7JJFWc09DoS
Bhg/XQrVCvE=
=BHcy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Martin Keegan
> 5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
> the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
> the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
To what extent is Ian's unpopularity and idiosyncratic behaviour outside
the sphere of votetaking considered relevant to his suitability _as
a votetaker_?
I ask as someone who has been viciously flamed by Ian (with
unsubstantiated imputations of dishonesty and incompetence against me)
who nevertheless retains absolute faith in his probity and honesty
when it comes to administering the machinery of democracy fairly,
correctly and honorably.
Mk
Darren Meldrum
>swi...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Robert Felton) writes:
>
>> 5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
>> the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
>> the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
>To what extent is Ian's unpopularity and idiosyncratic behaviour outside
>the sphere of votetaking considered relevant to his suitability _as
>a votetaker_?
Ian holds some unusual views on how internet mail should be managed, views
that on their own are not a problem no matter how strong the opposition to
those views are. However Ian made it clear in his early postings that he
intended to implement those unusual views with respect to votetaking and
was extremely reluctant to compromise on this subject. He also expressed
contempt for voters who did not meet a certain level of expertise and also
contempt for voters who did meet a certain level of expertise but who
decided to configure their mail software in a certain way.
If Ian had been receptive to comments from the start and had shown a small
amount of respect for his fellow votetakers, then he would still be there,
no matter how ludicrous his proposals. It is the way in which he conducted
himself that has led to this conclusion. I hope he will learn from this
episode, but I do not expect we will receive a public acknowledgement of
this.
--
Darren Meldrum (dar...@meldrum.co.uk)
Martin Keegan
> Martin Keegan wrote on 19 Apr 2000 06:38:59 +0100:
>
> >swi...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Robert Felton) writes:
> >
> >> 5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
> >> the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
> >> the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
>
> >To what extent is Ian's unpopularity and idiosyncratic behaviour outside
> >the sphere of votetaking considered relevant to his suitability _as
> >a votetaker_?
>
> Ian holds some unusual views on how internet mail should be managed, views
> that on their own are not a problem no matter how strong the opposition to
> those views are. However Ian made it clear in his early postings that he
> intended to implement those unusual views with respect to votetaking and
> was extremely reluctant to compromise on this subject. He also expressed
> contempt for voters who did not meet a certain level of expertise and also
> contempt for voters who did meet a certain level of expertise but who
> decided to configure their mail software in a certain way.
Isn't his contempt for those he perceives as his technical inferiors
part and parcel of the views of his which you say aren't a problem? That
he has such views and is unwilling to compromise on them without a good
fight are only relevant to the question of Ian Jackson qua policy maker,
not Ian Jackson qua votetaker.
Mk
Darren Meldrum
>Isn't his contempt for those he perceives as his technical inferiors
>part and parcel of the views of his which you say aren't a problem?
He indicated that votes from such people were not important. That comment
alone led many to lose confidence in his ability to handle a vote fairly
and free from bias.
--
Darren Meldrum (dar...@meldrum.co.uk)
Ian Jackson
Darren Meldrum <dar...@meldrum.co.uk> wrote:
>He indicated that votes from such people were not important. That comment
>alone led many to lose confidence in his ability to handle a vote fairly
>and free from bias.
What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
instructions are not important. I think this is patently true. If
votes from people who can't follow simple instructions _are_ important
we should start a massive outreach program to all the idiots who can't
fill in a ballot paper.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 public key id 0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
James Coupe
<mk...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>Isn't his contempt for those he perceives as his technical inferiors
>part and parcel of the views of his which you say aren't a problem?
They aren't a problem when they don't affect his ability to take a vote.
--
James Coupe
James Coupe
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
>instructions are not important.
And then informed us that other vote-takers don't follow up invalid
ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
all.
--
James Coupe
Blade Runner
wrote:
>What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
>instructions are not important.
And this is better how?
> I think this is patently true. If
>votes from people who can't follow simple instructions _are_ important
>we should start a massive outreach program to all the idiots who can't
>fill in a ballot paper.
All votes are important - this is a kind of inherent property of a vote.
Comparing the importance of votes that have been made incorrectly with votes
that have not been made at all is silly, because the votes of people who have
not filled in a ballot paper[0] are not - um - votes.
[0] Voting should, of course, be as simple as is humanly possible.
--
Geoff (Blade Runner), uk.* usenet committee member
speaking in a personal capacity.
Simple RFD creation with the online RFD Maker
http://www.cthree.freeserve.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Ian Jackson
Blade Runner <blac...@geocities.com> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2000 12:57:14 +0100 (BST) in uk.net.news.management, Ian Jackson
>wrote:
>>What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
>>instructions are not important.
>All votes are important - this is a kind of inherent property of a vote.
>Comparing the importance of votes that have been made incorrectly with votes
>that have not been made at all is silly, because the votes of people who have
>not filled in a ballot paper[0] are not - um - votes.
Ah, this is a clever way to get out of it: redefine the incorrect
ballots from people who can't follow simple instructions so that they
aren't votes and are therefore not important.
Ian Jackson
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>And then informed us that other vote-takers don't follow up invalid
>ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
>all.
I claimed, with justification, that other votetakers don't _always_
process and return a reply for every mail their system accepts at the
voting address. For example, I quoted a RESULTS posting where an
attempted vote had been listed but no message was returned.
I don't think that it is wrong, but I said I thought it would be
better not to accept the mail rather than accept it and fail to
process it. Obviously people here disagree (or disagree that - given
that the rejection and failure to be able to reply won't be completely
correlated - rejecting the unreplyable mail is worth ever rejecting
any mail that could have been replied but looked wrong).
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
| votes from people who can't follow simple instructions _are_ important
| we should start a massive outreach program to all the idiots who can't
| fill in a ballot paper.
There already is one.
Members of UKVOTING assist voters in every way possible to get
accurately filled out ballots. They go out of their way to de-spam
return addresses and make sense out of even the worst completed
ballots. I honestly believe that there is a feeling of grief when
they post a result that includes even one rejected ballot.
I would hate to read the results of a ballot under your proposed
system. Assuming that the rejected ballots even made it to a level
where you could display a list of rejections and reasons.
But alas it is over. You are to be congratulated for your tenacity.
One quality that IS good in a votetaker, when properly focused. Our
current list of votetakers seem to be tenaciously after counting every
vote. The confidence in you to do that task is lost when you make
comments like the above.
It is a sad day for UK.* - but out of the ashes a phoenix will arise.
A UKVOTING that takes care of its own problems and can be fully
trusted with the counting of votes, even mangled ones.
JL
Ian Jackson
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>They aren't a problem when they don't affect his ability to take a vote.
We're not talking here about contempt for people with less
understanding of technology. We're talking about people who have less
understanding of _anything_, including simple written English. I
would certainly not want to make it more difficult for
non-technically-minded people to vote.
Furthermore, I don't have contempt for such people. I just don't
think that we should base our decisions about voting procedures on the
idea that the votes of people who can't follow simple instructions are
as important as those of people who can.
Neil Fernandez
19 Apr 2000), Blade Runner <blac...@geocities.com> writes:
>Comparing the importance of votes that have been made incorrectly with votes
>that have not been made at all is silly, because the votes of people who have
>not filled in a ballot paper[0] are not - um - votes.
I agree. Which does tend to show that this ex-votetaker was rather too
up himself to be able to take a vote in a dignified manner.
Say I ran a garage, and set up an obstacle course which people had to
get their cars through before I'd take them on as customers, and put up
a sign saying 'If you're too stupid to drive your car into this garage,
you can fuck right off'. Would that increase or reduce people's
confidence in my skills?
It's a bit like saying 'I'm so proud of what I know about computers,
that I think everyone who knows less is a lump of dogshit'.
A vote-taker should be *helpful*. If someone does not understand the
rules, the vote-taker should be willing to help them with a glad heart.
Most *are* like this. This one wasn't. He's out and good riddance.
I'm no lover of votes myself. Some people are. Some people enjoy taking
votes and are good at it. This was an example of someone who just wanted
to look at himself in the mirror and tell himself he was important
because he was playing a 'powerful' role. Fuck him. A lot of
can't-get-a-girlfriend-so-I-specialise-in-pedantry points have been
made, but I think most people can see what was going on. UK-Voting took
the right decision. FIN
--
Neil Fernandez
Neil Fernandez
2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
/
>Members of UKVOTING assist voters in every way possible to get
>accurately filled out ballots. They go out of their way to de-spam
>return addresses and make sense out of even the worst completed
>ballots. I honestly believe that there is a feeling of grief when
>they post a result that includes even one rejected ballot.
>
>I would hate to read the results of a ballot under your proposed
>system. Assuming that the rejected ballots even made it to a level
>where you could display a list of rejections and reasons.
>
>But alas it is over. You are to be congratulated for your tenacity.
>One quality that IS good in a votetaker, when properly focused. Our
>current list of votetakers seem to be tenaciously after counting every
>vote. The confidence in you to do that task is lost when you make
>comments like the above.
I agree with you Justa. The role of a votetaker, as well as calling for
technical confidence and tenacity, also calls for a predisposition
towards helpfulness. In general they do a very good job, and if one
votetaker in whom there were a lack of confidence with regard to the
above, nonetheless did have the confidence of the other vote-takers, the
confidence in UK-Voting as a whole would fall, which would not be good
at all.
--
Neil Fernandez
Neil Fernandez
Apr 2000), Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>In article <QYcX+WA$Db$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>,
>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>>They aren't a problem when they don't affect his ability to take a vote.
>
>We're not talking here about contempt for people with less
>understanding of technology. We're talking about people who have less
>understanding of _anything_, including simple written English. I
>would certainly not want to make it more difficult for
>non-technically-minded people to vote.
>
>Furthermore, I don't have contempt for such people. I just don't
>think that we should base our decisions about voting procedures on the
>idea that the votes of people who can't follow simple instructions are
>as important as those of people who can.
This just illustrates your contempt. If someone fails to understand or
follow a simple instruction, that does not mean they CANNOT follow
simple instructions, nor does it mean they have 'less understanding of
[everything]' than those who follow the instructions correctly. One has
to ask why you are seeing things like that. I think many people have
asked, and have come up with the right answer.
Oh and BTW I was correcting your English there - you meant 'everything',
you typed 'anything'. I wouldn't normally do that but I thought in the
circumstances it was justified. I would not suggest that your error
indicates that you CANNOT express ANY simple idea in written English,
nor that it indicates that you have less understanding of EVERYTHING
than any particular other person.
But I would point out that you do look rather foolish when you express
the view that people who fail to understand a voting instruction must be
incapable of understanding anything, including written English, when you
yourself make an error such as the above when you actually try to write
something simple down in English.
In the world of network news, it seems, plus ça change...
The truth is, we can all at times misunderstand written instructions.
--
Neil Fernandez
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| I claimed, with justification, that other votetakers don't _always_
| process and return a reply for every mail their system accepts at the
| voting address. For example, I quoted a RESULTS posting where an
| attempted vote had been listed but no message was returned.
And thereby missed the forest while looking at a tree. ONE vote in
ONE election where the voter had gone out of their way to spamtrap
their email beyond recognision by the votetaker.
Meanwhile the forest of mangled votes get counted or special notes
mailed back outlining errors (no vote on ballot, no name on ballot,
etc) instead of inexact bounces, if anything got back at all.
In your system that voter MAY have received a bounce. Maybe not.
With the spamtrap was that bad chiark would have bounced it back to
the smarthost for that postmaster to deal with. Foisting the
responsibility onto that postmaster.
The point is moot. You are not a votetaker in uk.* .
Let us go on to more pleasant subjects than your private system.
No objection to your personality or system is relevant to unnm as you
are not part of the official workings of the system. Welcome back to
the masses.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| We're not talking here about contempt for people with less
| understanding of technology. We're talking about people who have less
| understanding of _anything_, including simple written English. I
| would certainly not want to make it more difficult for
| non-technically-minded people to vote.
And those who cannot understand simple written English are sent to the
bin? Sorry. No prejudice alowed. Not even against those who cannot
spell or refuse to learn how to spellcheck or use bad grammar or use
extra super long run on sentances while writing in a style that is
more suited to speaking while raising one's voice!
They attempt to cast a ballot ... you count it. The attitude you show
is one of "I'll do my duty - period." instead of the one generally
cast by current UKVOTING members "I'll go beyond the call of duty, and
even be ridiculed if needed to get every voter's opinion."
| Furthermore, I don't have contempt for such people. I just don't
| think that we should base our decisions about voting procedures on the
| idea that the votes of people who can't follow simple instructions are
| as important as those of people who can.
The majority seems to believe that we should not base our decisions on
the idea that people who can't follow simple instructions should be
tossed out of the process. Flagrant abuse of voting has happened and
has been delt with.[1] But non-understanding is part of the
territory.
JL
[1] one of borve filling in a [yes/no/abstain] box with a statement
instead of a response - I believe others have attempted to change the
wording of the question, and THAT would be rejected. But simply
missing where to put something on the ballot, like real name or email
address, should not be grounds for labeling someone "too stupid to
vote" as you seem bent on doing.
Ian Jackson
Justa Lurker <jlu...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>It was 19 Apr 2000 16:09:01 +0100 (BST), and Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
>| I claimed, with justification, that other votetakers don't _always_
>| process and return a reply for every mail their system accepts at the
>| voting address. For example, I quoted a RESULTS posting where an
>| attempted vote had been listed but no message was returned.
>
>And thereby missed the forest while looking at a tree.
I'm getting really fed up[1] of the way my opponents misquote me and
persistently misstate facts, for example, James Coupe in
<YYUV+sAfFb$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>:
And then informed us that other vote-takers don't follow up invalid
ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
all.
When I correct the misquote, I get some completely irrelevant response
such as yours.
> ONE vote in ONE election where the voter had gone out of their way
>to spamtrap their email beyond recognision by the votetaker.
I haven't done an investigation to see how often this happens, but I
think (I may recall incorrectly) that it has happened more than once.
However, my point is that James Coupe had (a) misquoted me and
(b) claimed I had asserted a falsehood without justification - whereas
what I had actually asserted is a documented fact.
...
>Meanwhile the forest of mangled votes get counted or special notes
>mailed back outlining errors (no vote on ballot, no name on ballot,
>etc) instead of inexact bounces, if anything got back at all.
You give the impression that I was proposing having my software parse
the ballot before accepting the mail. This is not the case. Mangled
ballots would be replied to, with explanations and instructions for
how to correct the prolem, in the usual way.
The situation where my proposal would have treated messages
differently to a laxly configured standard MTA, is only if the actual
mail headers or mail transmission was wrong[2] in some way. In this
case my system would be more likely to reject the message, whereas a
lax one would be more likely to accept it and leave the votetaker to
chase up the bounced ack or nack (or not, depending on their policy).
[1] Probably, in the absence of this footnote, this would result in a
followup from someone along the lines of `and we are really fed up
with you doing <false allegation>' or `and we are really fed up with
<meaningless insults>'. Regardless of whether you agree with me, I
have a right not to be misquoted.
[2] I'm aware that not everyone disagrees with my definition of wrong
with respect to direct SMTP mail from dynamic dialups.
Neil Fernandez
2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
/
>Flagrant abuse of voting has happened and
>has been delt with.[1]
/
>[1] one of borve filling in a [yes/no/abstain] box with a statement
>instead of a response
There was no abuse. IIRC the box was filled in with 'abstain' followed
by the reason for abstention, in several words of non-abusive text
IIANM, no acknowledgement was received, therefore a new vote should have
been entered. It was the voter's fault that it wasn't.
However, it was a multi-vote ballot, and the vote-taker was wrong to
disallow the votes in the other parts of the ballot.
Anyway this is raking over old coals.
>- I believe others have attempted to change the
>wording of the question, and THAT would be rejected.
Spoiling a ballot paper is not ipso facto abuse.
Entering 'ABSTAIN - BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' is not an
anti-social act. It should be counted as an abstention or a 'spoil' for
that option. It's hardly like pasting in 'War and Peace'.
--
Neil Fernandez
Ian Jackson
Neil Fernandez <ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>Say I ran a garage, and set up an obstacle course which people had to
>get their cars through before I'd take them on as customers, and put up
>a sign saying 'If you're too stupid to drive your car into this garage,
>you can fuck right off'. Would that increase or reduce people's
>confidence in my skills?
This analogy is wrong, because I wasn't trying to impose obstacles in
the way of voters. I was wanting to impose requirements on their
sysadmins - but only to enforce technical standards that they should
already comply with[1].
For the overwhelming majority of voters my proposals would have
provided a system very similar to that of any other votetaker, except
in the format of ballot papers - and I have substantial experience in
how to make ballot papers that voters are likely to get right, which I
was hoping to put into practice.
[1] I am aware that some people think that best current practice
supports direct SMTP from dynamic dial-ups. I disagree with them.
Ian Jackson
{R} Richard Ashton <new...@pink.semolina.org> wrote:
...
>On your criteria during the recent UK Guidelines vote by my count 14 votes
>would have to be discarded for failing to strictly follow simple instructions
>including two from members of the committee.
I think that this is unlikely to be true.
However, only Richard Ashton has the raw votes and he mustn't release
them so he can't justify his statement.
How convenient.
Richard, when are you going to retract your unfounded allegation that
I was a liar ?
James Coupe
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>We're not talking here about contempt for people with less
>understanding of technology.
You were, when you declared that people who didn't have entirely RFC
compliant systems weren't allowed to mail you. You only backed down
grudgingly when shouted at by bloody everyone.
--
James Coupe
James Coupe
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>I'm getting really fed up[1] of the way my opponents misquote me and
>persistently misstate facts, for example, James Coupe in
><YYUV+sAfFb$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>:
> And then informed us that other vote-takers don't follow up invalid
> ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
> all.
I object to that being called a misquote. You told us that vote-takers
don't follow up invalid ballots. No ifs, buts or maybes. No "some
vote-takers" don't follow up "some" invalid ballots. Blanket statements
were what you used.
--
James Coupe
James Coupe
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>This analogy is wrong, because I wasn't trying to impose obstacles in
>the way of voters. I was wanting to impose requirements on their
>sysadmins - but only to enforce technical standards that they should
>already comply with[1].
And if they can't get it fixed (or don't understand the bounce) within 2
weeks (or whatever the voting period is), they don't count. (That is
what your system would have done.)
--
James Coupe
Molly Mockford
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>
>provided a system very similar to that of any other votetaker, except
>in the format of ballot papers - and I have substantial experience in
>how to make ballot papers that voters are likely to get right, which I
>was hoping to put into practice.
>
experience in Big-8 if you feel willing to do so, in making suggestions
for improvements. (ObDisclaimer: As long as it doesn't involve obliging
anyone to vote from the address to which a ballot paper was sent if they
would rather use a different one.) As the newest and least-experienced
votetaker, I am only too willing to learn from any source. It seems to
me that the two main problems were (a) Chiark and its strictness
(avoided Godwin there!) and (b) the enforcement of a particular email
address in the ballot. You could either post suggestions here, or send
them to UKVoting, if you have ideas which could be helpful.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <38fdd9b5....@news.bnin.net>,
| Justa Lurker <jlu...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
| >It was 19 Apr 2000 16:09:01 +0100 (BST), and Ian Jackson
| ><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| >| I claimed, with justification, that other votetakers don't _always_
| >| process and return a reply for every mail their system accepts at the
| >| voting address. For example, I quoted a RESULTS posting where an
| >| attempted vote had been listed but no message was returned.
| >
| >And thereby missed the forest while looking at a tree.
|
| persistently misstate facts, for example, James Coupe in
| <YYUV+sAfFb$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>:
| And then informed us that other vote-takers don't follow up invalid
| ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
| all.
|
| such as yours.
Irrelevant because it hurts your cause?
You played on the ONE vote that couldn't be followed up out of the
many that GOOD votetakers have followed up. Followed up votes that
YOU would not have seen, let alone count had you had your way.
RELEVANT because it goes to the base issue.
You did say in the earlier post that 'votetakers drop votes without
telling the voters'. Tried to use that one vote as proof. Yet even
the voter understood that it was their error and didn't complain.
And then you come back, even now when the discussion is entirely moot
and twist your own words and try to say that you were not that bad.
The truth is known. UKVOTING has spoken. And uk.* can rest easier
this night knowing that votes are in safe hands. NOT YOURS.
| > ONE vote in ONE election where the voter had gone out of their way
| >to spamtrap their email beyond recognision by the votetaker.
|
| I haven't done an investigation to see how often this happens, but I
| think (I may recall incorrectly) that it has happened more than once.
|
| However, my point is that James Coupe had (a) misquoted me and
| (b) claimed I had asserted a falsehood without justification - whereas
| what I had actually asserted is a documented fact.
What you asserted was that dropping votes was routine. You will need
to delve into each and every rejected vote to discover why anyone ever
makes the 'rejected' list. See how much effort was put into keeping
those names OFF of that list. And remember that with your preferred
system those votes wouldn't even make it TO that list as many emails
would be rejected unread.
| >Meanwhile the forest of mangled votes get counted or special notes
| >mailed back outlining errors (no vote on ballot, no name on ballot,
| >etc) instead of inexact bounces, if anything got back at all.
|
| You give the impression that I was proposing having my software parse
| the ballot before accepting the mail. This is not the case. Mangled
| ballots would be replied to, with explanations and instructions for
| how to correct the prolem, in the usual way.
Unless the envelope sender was bad. Or it was direct to MX from a
dynamic IP. Or it was via newsguy.com and they had a cnamed MX. Or
chiark was irritated. Basic problems that would never make it in your
door to be parsed!
| The situation where my proposal would have treated messages
| differently to a laxly configured standard MTA, is only if the actual
| mail headers or mail transmission was wrong[2] in some way. In this
| case my system would be more likely to reject the message, whereas a
| lax one would be more likely to accept it and leave the votetaker to
| chase up the bounced ack or nack (or not, depending on their policy).
And the policy was to trace as best could be. NOT to chuck it and go
on as you suggested in your earlier posts.
| [1] Probably, in the absence of this footnote, this would result in a
| followup from someone along the lines of `and we are really fed up
| with you doing <false allegation>' or `and we are really fed up with
| <meaningless insults>'. Regardless of whether you agree with me, I
| have a right not to be misquoted.
And you were NOT misquoted. Those are your exact words.
| [2] I'm aware that not everyone disagrees with my definition of wrong
| with respect to direct SMTP mail from dynamic dialups.
It is hard to find someone outside of chiark that agrees.
Now be a good boy and go back to your programming.
Before we need the tar and feathers.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <ikoBgHArGd$4E...@borve.demon.co.uk>,
| Neil Fernandez <ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| ...
| >Say I ran a garage, and set up an obstacle course which people had to
| >get their cars through before I'd take them on as customers, and put up
| >a sign saying 'If you're too stupid to drive your car into this garage,
| >you can fuck right off'. Would that increase or reduce people's
| >confidence in my skills?
|
| the way of voters. I was wanting to impose requirements on their
| sysadmins - but only to enforce technical standards that they should
| already comply with[1].
So Newsguy's users get penalized for using Newsguy.com as a smarthost.
They even get the suggestion to change ISPs just because you don't
like cnamed MXs, which has nothing to do with mail sent to your
server, other than your inate need to bounce mail.
| For the overwhelming majority of voters my proposals would have
| provided a system very similar to that of any other votetaker, except
| in the format of ballot papers - and I have substantial experience in
| how to make ballot papers that voters are likely to get right, which I
| was hoping to put into practice.
Assuming that they could actually get their ballot to you, and you
conceeded most of the complaints against you (Reply To - Changing name
or email on requested ballots). Yes one day there will be a working
system that will do as well as you expected yours to work. But it
will be done by the cooperative working of UKVOTING, not the dictates
of one sysadmin with a facist MTA.
| [1] I am aware that some people think that best current practice
| supports direct SMTP from dynamic dial-ups. I disagree with them.
Tough noogies. It is RFC compliant. You should accept RFC compliant
email, regardless of your personal issues against 'spammers'.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| I think that this is unlikely to be true.
| Richard, when are you going to retract your unfounded allegation that
| I was a liar ?
So if something is believed by YOU to be unlikely to be true,
regardless of your ability to prove your unfounded allegation of it
being untrue, it is a lie that must be apologized for?
Get real!
BTW- Barry also has raw votes. If he wants to sink to your level of
bickering he could back up Richard. But then that would be the only
two people with raw votes... and you wouldn't believe them, would you?
| However, only Richard Ashton has the raw votes and he mustn't release
| them so he can't justify his statement.
THAT IS A LIE!!!!! Barry has the raw votes too!!!
Ian Jackson is a PROVEN LIAR and should apologize!
Get Real .... better yet, get lost.
Don't you have a bug in your sauce to fix? You know, the one that
sends temporary error messages to hosts that (according to you) have
permanent problems?
JL
Justa Lurker
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <38fddc21....@news.bnin.net> (16:28:05, Wed, 19 Apr
| 2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
| /
| >Flagrant abuse of voting has happened and
| >has been delt with.[1]
|
| /
| >[1] one of borve filling in a [yes/no/abstain] box with a statement
| >instead of a response
|
| There was no abuse. IIRC the box was filled in with 'abstain' followed
| by the reason for abstention, in several words of non-abusive text
The reason for abstention is not permitted. Regardless of the
wording, it was not abusive words but abuse of the system. As a
regular you know better than to fill in more than what is requested.
A newbe may have got away with it, but at the time you were acting the
wrecker.
You are right about it being old news. But it is an example of a
ballot being rejected due to not being filled out correctly. I expect
Ian will love it, even though it doesn't exactly fit the description.
JL
James Coupe
</dev/null@?.com> writes
>Now be a good boy and go back to your programming.
>Before we need the tar and feathers.
Hey, no spoiling the fun.
--
James Coupe
Alan Ford
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <f46rfskui19epu7tm...@news.meldrum.co.uk>,
>Darren Meldrum <dar...@meldrum.co.uk> wrote:
>>He indicated that votes from such people were not important. That comment
>>alone led many to lose confidence in his ability to handle a vote fairly
>>and free from bias.
>
>What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
>instructions are not important.
Oh FFS! Like that's any better?!
The same point remains.
>I think this is patently true. If
>votes from people who can't follow simple instructions _are_ important
>we should start a massive outreach program to all the idiots who can't
>fill in a ballot paper.
Don't be stupid.
--
Alan Ford * al...@whirlnet.co.uk * http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/
PGP Key: 0x8F807D7D - email p...@whirlnet.co.uk or see keyservers
Demon Newsgroups Info + FAQs: http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/demon/
!! YOUR PRIVACY IS AT RISK. TELL YOUR MP *NOW*! http://www.stand.org.uk/ !!
Alan Ford
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <YYUV+sAfFb$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>,
>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>>And then informed us that other vote-takers don't follow up invalid
>>ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
>>all.
>
>process and return a reply for every mail their system accepts at the
>voting address. For example, I quoted a RESULTS posting where an
>attempted vote had been listed but no message was returned.
Not without a bloody large amount of trying, though.
You also failed to explain how your marvellous system would handle it any
better, which was the whole reason you brought it up in the first place.
Alan Ford
>In article <8uarfsgtrn1k1svpk...@4ax.com>,
>Blade Runner <blac...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>All votes are important - this is a kind of inherent property of a vote.
>>that have not been made at all is silly, because the votes of people who have
>>not filled in a ballot paper[0] are not - um - votes.
>
>ballots from people who can't follow simple instructions so that they
>aren't votes and are therefore not important.
Oh come on, stop being silly.
Look -- very simple. If somebody tries to vote, but makes a mess somewhere
in the process, then the votetaker is there to help them out. Those are
people trying to express a view -- they are voting on the matter -- and all
votes are equally important.
If somebody hasn't sent a vote, then they haven't voted. They are not
trying to express a view.
Alan Ford
>This analogy is wrong, because I wasn't trying to impose obstacles in
>the way of voters.
*blink* *blink*
>I was wanting to impose requirements on their
>sysadmins - but only to enforce technical standards that they should
>already comply with[1].
And sysadmins are unlikely to "fix" their systems to conform just with
yours. Therefore you would have been placing obstacles in the way.
>[1] I am aware that some people think that best current practice
>supports direct SMTP from dynamic dial-ups. I disagree with them.
Well you're entitled to your view, however you are wrong. There are no
standards that specifically say direct-to-MX mailing is wrong.
Alan Ford
>Furthermore, I don't have contempt for such people. I just don't
>think that we should base our decisions about voting procedures on the
>idea that the votes of people who can't follow simple instructions are
>as important as those of people who can.
The last part of that sentance DOES look as if you are showing contempt
for such people.
Justa Lurker
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| {R} speaking as a member of, but not for, UKVoting.
Something that few can do. You do it well.
JL
Chris Croughton
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <38fdc927....@news.bnin.net> (15:07:23, Wed, 19 Apr
>2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
>
>I agree with you Justa. The role of a votetaker, as well as calling for
>technical confidence and tenacity, also calls for a predisposition
>towards helpfulness. In general they do a very good job, and if one
>votetaker in whom there were a lack of confidence with regard to the
>above, nonetheless did have the confidence of the other vote-takers, the
>confidence in UK-Voting as a whole would fall, which would not be good
>at all.
I would like to point out that this debacle has not caused me to lose
confidence in UKVoting as a whole, in fact their handling and resolution
of this confirm my respect for them (the recent massive Guidelines vote
is another case where the votetakers are to be thanked). I don't know
whether, had the rogue votetaker continued, my opinion would have
changed; thankfully the point is now moot.
Chris C
--
uk.current-affairs.usenet-censorship
Imminent death of Usenet, film at 11
Neil Fernandez
2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
>It was Wed, 19 Apr 2000 18:28:29 +0100, and Neil Fernandez
><ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
/
>| There was no abuse. IIRC the box was filled in with 'abstain' followed
>| by the reason for abstention, in several words of non-abusive text
>
>The reason for abstention is not permitted.
In the debate at the time, ISTR that at least one other
vote-takers said they didn't take the same line, in the votes they
conducted.
>Regardless of the
>wording, it was not abusive words but abuse of the system.
That's only your opinion. I have never heard it expressed by a
vote-taker, even by the vote-taker who disallowed that vote. They took
the person's entire ballot-paper to be spoiled, which is not the same as
viewing the voter as having abused the system. Pasting in 'War and
Peace' between the brackets - now that *would* have been abuse - albeit
of the vote-taker, not really of the 'system'.
>As a
>regular you know better than to fill in more than what is requested.
>A newbe may have got away with it, but at the time you were acting the
>wrecker.
You use such strong language, Justa. It is unwarranted. Someone who
writes 'ABSTAIN - BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' is a
'wrecker'? Calm down!
As for newbies and regulars, I see things very differently from you, and
so, I think, do the vote-takers. Vote-takers should - and do - treat
newbies in EXACTLY the same way as they treat regulars, and it would be
appalling if they didn't.
>You are right about it being old news. But it is an example of a
>ballot being rejected due to not being filled out correctly. I expect
>Ian will love it, even though it doesn't exactly fit the description.
Oh you trouble-maker you! :-)
--
Neil Fernandez
Thomas Lee
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
>instructions are not important. I think this is patently true. If
>votes from people who can't follow simple instructions _are_ important
>we should start a massive outreach program to all the idiots who can't
>fill in a ballot paper.
While I do have some sympathy with this view - this is not a view I feel
a vote taker (or a committee member) can hold and still do the job
right.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Dave Mayall
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>I haven't done an investigation to see how often this happens, but I
>think (I may recall incorrectly) that it has happened more than once.
So, you feel that asserting that what you were intending to do was
fine, on the basis that it was normal practice, without checking your
facts was a good idea?
This sorry episode has done more harm to the reputation of UKVoting
than any previous occurrence, and the responsibility for this harm
falls squarely upon your shoulders.
--
Dave Mayall
Dave Mayall
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>[1] I am aware that some people think that best current practice
>supports direct SMTP from dynamic dial-ups. I disagree with them.
Tough.
The time has come to be extremely blunt.
I couldn't give a toss about your opinions on current best practice.
If I want to work out what current best practice is, I wouldn't ask
you if you were the last person posting.
I could give a toss about the inordinate amount of time you have
wasted trying to horse trade your ideas.
--
Dave Mayall
Dave Mayall
wrote:
>I would like to point out that this debacle has not caused me to lose
>confidence in UKVoting as a whole, in fact their handling and resolution
>of this confirm my respect for them (the recent massive Guidelines vote
>is another case where the votetakers are to be thanked). I don't know
>whether, had the rogue votetaker continued, my opinion would have
>changed; thankfully the point is now moot.
What he says!
--
Dave Mayall
Ian Jackson
Robert Felton <swi...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Following a lengthy and detailed discussion on the UKVoting mailing list
>and within UNNM, and as UKVoting Co-Ordinator, I have decided that Ian
>Jackson can no longer continue as a member of UKVoting.
FYI, I have made an enquiry to the Committee about this.
My complaints are basically twofold: one is that Robert Felton seems
to be running ukvoting as a private empire, and the other is that I
don't think I personally have been dealt with properly.
When he first mailed me about this, Robert Felton made a number of
very strong demands of me as conditions of my continuation as a member
of ukvoting. I agreed to those demands. However, as part of the
statement he was going to issue about my continuation he wanted me to
put my name to the five paragraphs you see in his posting:
>1) the defence of such heavily criticised proposals has damaged the name
> of UKVoting.
>2) UKVoting operates as a independent organisation with the ability to
> control its own procedures, as long as they met the voting guidelines.
> And in the belief of UKVoting this position should be able to continue
> whilst we have the support of the majority of the uk.* community.
>3) UKVoting operates as a body of consensus through discussion and debate,
> with the Co-Ordinator having to make a final decision on the odd
> occasion.
>4) The procedures of UKVoting have been established in their current form
> now for at least 18 months, and they work fine 99% of the time. And
> change should be only be implemented following discussion with
> UKVoting, and if felt necessary - the uk.* community.
>5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
> the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
> the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
I complained that I disagreed with some of them. For example, some I
feel are unhelpfully confrontational, and amount to Robert wanting me
to sign up to his `spin' on the events.
Also, I think that the community should always be consulted about
significant changes in voting procedures, not just `if felt necessary'
by ukvoting.
However, Robert was insistent that I agree to exactly the wording you
see above, and put my name to it. In the end he fired me because I
refused to do so. This was the only outstanding disagreement.
It seems strange to me that in order for me to continue as a votetaker
Robert would require me to agree, for example, that I had `lost the
confidence, respect and support of the majority of the uk.*
community'. If I agreed I would surely just resign; how could I agree
that I'd lost everyone's confidence and respect and then continue as a
votetaker anyway ?
Ian Jackson
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <ySm*3Q...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>>I'm getting really fed up[1] of the way my opponents misquote me and
>>persistently misstate facts, for example, James Coupe in
>><YYUV+sAfFb$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>:
>> ballot forms, a fact which you failed to back up with any evidence at
>> all.
>
>don't follow up invalid ballots. No ifs, buts or maybes. No "some
>vote-takers" don't follow up "some" invalid ballots. Blanket statements
>were what you used.
No, I didn't. I have just searched all my postings to unna this year
for the word `follow', and the only relevant one is
<8+D*Kn...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, in which I say:
The situation we have at the moment is that there are some voters who
send a vote off, don't get an ack or a bounce or anything, and whose
vote is not counted because (eg) the ack bounced; these appear in the
RESULTS posting. [...]
Note my use of the word `some'. If I said something else in another
posting then please provide the Message-ID and relevant quote.
Ian Jackson
Dave Mayall <david....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
...
>So, you feel that asserting that what you were intending to do was
>fine, on the basis that it was normal practice, without checking your
>facts was a good idea?
What ? Why do you think I posted a draft, and engaged in all this
discussion, and mentioned my MTA specially in my draft instructions,
if I thought what I was proposing was normal practice ? Where did I
say I thought it was normal practice ?
Ian Jackson
Molly Mockford <mo...@orbs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
> It seems to me that the two main problems were (a) Chiark and its
>strictness (avoided Godwin there!) and (b) the enforcement of a
>particular email address in the ballot.
It's interesting that you should see those as the problems - because
of course chiark's MTA's strictness has become a non-issue since I
dropped the idea of using SAUCE for votes, and the discussion of
checking that the voter can receive email at the voting address had
not yet concluded when it was made moot.
Ian Jackson
Justa Lurker <jlu...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>It was 19 Apr 2000 18:29:17 +0100 (BST), and Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
>| I think that this is unlikely to be true.
> ...
>| Richard, when are you going to retract your unfounded allegation that
>| I was a liar ?
>
>So if something is believed by YOU to be unlikely to be true,
>regardless of your ability to prove your unfounded allegation of it
>being untrue, it is a lie that must be apologized for?
What?! I haven't accused you of lying. I think your claim about vote
rejections by my proposed systems are untrue, but I think you believe
them to be true, which means it's not a lie - just a mistake.
On the other hand, in a recent posting you accused me of lying
(<e0khes8v42ibau5tg...@pink.semolina.org>) when in fact
we had an honest (at least on my part) disagreement. I challenged you
to explain why you thought I was being dishonest, rather than merely
mistaken, and you have not yet done so.
>BTW- Barry also has raw votes. If he wants to sink to your level of
>bickering he could back up Richard. But then that would be the only
>two people with raw votes... and you wouldn't believe them, would you?
Ah, sorry, I forgot about the secondary votetaker. Perhaps I can have
a sensible discussion with Barry.
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| No, I didn't. I have just searched all my postings to unna this year
Funny. I haven't seen a single post by you in unna.
Lots by you in unnc and unnm, but none in unna.
A couple about you in unna, but none by you.
| for the word `follow', and the only relevant one is
Thank you for providing one tiny part of an old debate.
A debate that is moot, as you will never take a uk.* vote.
But yet you persist in dragging it over and over, even
though you are dead wrong.
| Ian Jackson
| These opinions are my own.
And nobody else wants them.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <KIN0nAFF5f$4E...@orbs.demon.co.uk>,
| Molly Mockford <mo...@orbs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| ...
| > It seems to me that the two main problems were (a) Chiark and its
| >strictness (avoided Godwin there!) and (b) the enforcement of a
| >particular email address in the ballot.
|
| It's interesting that you should see those as the problems - because
| of course chiark's MTA's strictness has become a non-issue since I
| dropped the idea of using SAUCE for votes, and the discussion of
| checking that the voter can receive email at the voting address had
| not yet concluded when it was made moot.
Which is precisely why it was made moot.
The rest of us had concluded the issue. Only a misguided wanna be
votetaker wasn't ready to conceed the point. And dropping sauce took
threatening to remove you as a votetaker.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:| >It was 19 Apr 2000 18:29:17 +0100 (BST), and Ian Jackson
| ><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| >| I think that this is unlikely to be true.
| > ...
| >| Richard, when are you going to retract your unfounded allegation that
| >| I was a liar ?
| >
| >So if something is believed by YOU to be unlikely to be true,
| >regardless of your ability to prove your unfounded allegation of it
| >being untrue, it is a lie that must be apologized for?
|
| What?! I haven't accused you of lying. I think your claim about vote
| rejections by my proposed systems are untrue, but I think you believe
| them to be true, which means it's not a lie - just a mistake.
|
| On the other hand, in a recent posting you accused me of lying
| (<e0khes8v42ibau5tg...@pink.semolina.org>) when in fact
| we had an honest (at least on my part) disagreement. I challenged you
| to explain why you thought I was being dishonest, rather than merely
| mistaken, and you have not yet done so.
My fiend, I have never posted with that message ID.
Perhaps one (specifically YOU) should read before replying?
(BTW: fiend is not misspelt.)
| >BTW- Barry also has raw votes. If he wants to sink to your level of
| >bickering he could back up Richard. But then that would be the only
| >two people with raw votes... and you wouldn't believe them, would you?
|
| Ah, sorry, I forgot about the secondary votetaker. Perhaps I can have
| a sensible discussion with Barry.
Ah, but you INSISTED that poor Richard was alone in his ability to
prove you wrong - and attacked.
Oh, Richard was the secondary. Barry was primary.
Try to get SOMETHING right, sunshine.
(Not the use of Richard's word does not make me Richard any more that
you assuming I was Richard when you wrote the post to which I now end
my reply.)
JL
Justa Lurker
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| >A newbe may have got away with it, but at the time you were acting the
| >wrecker.
|
| You use such strong language, Justa. It is unwarranted. Someone who
| writes 'ABSTAIN - BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' is a
| 'wrecker'? Calm down!
At the time you were doing worse. It was just another part of your
misbehaviour.
| >You are right about it being old news. But it is an example of a
| >ballot being rejected due to not being filled out correctly. I expect
| >Ian will love it, even though it doesn't exactly fit the description.
|
| Oh you trouble-maker you! :-)
Nahh ... Ian hates me so much that he can't even post straight.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <notice-ukvoting-ian-jackson-20000419010754$7e...@usenet.org.uk>,
| Robert Felton <swi...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
| >Following a lengthy and detailed discussion on the UKVoting mailing list
| >and within UNNM, and as UKVoting Co-Ordinator, I have decided that Ian
| >Jackson can no longer continue as a member of UKVoting.
|
| FYI, I have made an enquiry to the Committee about this.
I hope they send you packing too.
| My complaints are basically twofold: one is that Robert Felton seems
| to be running ukvoting as a private empire, and the other is that I
| don't think I personally have been dealt with properly.
Poor baby! You are not allowed to play with the toys so you run to
father and scream. Maybe the committee will send you a tape of
Teletubbies to watch while you nurse your wounds?
As for Rob's dealings. He is doing the best he can to keep UKVOTING
running as an independent body of trusted votetakers. Independent of
Control and the Committee, not independent of UKVOTING.
| >1) the defence of such heavily criticised proposals has damaged the name
| > of UKVoting.
True
| >2) UKVoting operates as a independent organisation with the ability to
| > control its own procedures, as long as they met the voting guidelines.
True
| > And in the belief of UKVoting this position should be able to continue
| > whilst we have the support of the majority of the uk.* community.
The trick is keeping the support --- which is rather easy most times.
| >3) UKVoting operates as a body of consensus through discussion and debate,
| > with the Co-Ordinator having to make a final decision on the odd
| > occasion.
True - and proven historically
| >4) The procedures of UKVoting have been established in their current form
| > now for at least 18 months, and they work fine 99% of the time. And
| > change should be only be implemented following discussion with
| > UKVoting, and if felt necessary - the uk.* community.
True - and that's the way even major changes were fleshed out before
| >5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
| > the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
| > the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
Very True - To the point where your concessions no longer mattered ...
it was a deep attitude that was troublesome.
| I complained that I disagreed with some of them. For example, some I
| feel are unhelpfully confrontational, and amount to Robert wanting me
| to sign up to his `spin' on the events.
Ian - you were unhelpfully confrontational in the debate. And you
complain when Rob pinpoints the problems?
| Also, I think that the community should always be consulted about
| significant changes in voting procedures, not just `if felt necessary'
| by ukvoting.
History has proven that significant changes are the ones that ukvoting
felt necessary to consult about. So your argument washes out.
| However, Robert was insistent that I agree to exactly the wording you
| see above, and put my name to it. In the end he fired me because I
| refused to do so. This was the only outstanding disagreement.
Refusal to cooperate with ukvoting. Good enough for me.
| It seems strange to me that in order for me to continue as a votetaker
| Robert would require me to agree, for example, that I had `lost the
| confidence, respect and support of the majority of the uk.*
| community'. If I agreed I would surely just resign; how could I agree
| that I'd lost everyone's confidence and respect and then continue as a
| votetaker anyway ?
Apologize?
I expected the statement to be one of "Ian will remain a votetaker,
with the agreement to follow the standard practices of votetaking that
other members of ukvoting have made common. Those practices are
outlined here. 1) Accept all email to a voting address ..." and
everything else that has been unwritten, but visible standard
practice.
It saddens me that it had to come down to removal. That you were too
proud to step aside even when it was painfully obvious that any vote
to took would be under the highest scrutiny due to your statements.
UKVOTING have proven that they are not so independent of uk.* that
they will not clean house when need be. The phoenix rises.
JL
Charles Bryant
Martin Keegan <mk...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>swi...@cix.compulink.co.uk (Robert Felton) writes:
>
>> 5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the majority of
>> the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers, and finally
>> the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
>
>the sphere of votetaking considered relevant to his suitability _as
>a votetaker_?
A votetaker needs to act on behalf of the community. This cannot always
be done in a way which is easily checked (e.g. when checking whether two
addresses are really the same person if someone offers to prove their
'real' name on condition that it is not published), so the community
needs to have confidence in more than the honesty and competence of
votetakers - they also need to have confidence that the votetaker will
use a standard that the community would agree with. Although the
votetaker need not personally agree with this standard, they must be
sensitive to the community feeling and be willing to apply the community
standard.
I presume that people felt that the nature of the arguments showed
that Ian did not appreciate the depth of feeling of the community and
they therefore didn't have confidence he would be aware of the
community's standards to apply.
--
Eppur si muove
Matthew Vernon
> I presume that people felt that the nature of the arguments showed
> that Ian did not appreciate the depth of feeling of the community and
> they therefore didn't have confidence he would be aware of the
> community's standards to apply.
...and was so unaware of the community's standards that he posted his
proposed methods to see if they would be acceptable to the community?
That makes no sense at all.
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org
Peter Parry
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>It seems strange to me that in order for me to continue as a votetaker
>Robert would require me to agree, for example, that I had `lost the
>confidence, respect and support of the majority of the uk.*
>community'. If I agreed I would surely just resign; how could I agree
>that I'd lost everyone's confidence and respect and then continue as a
>votetaker anyway ?
This paragraph sums up the main reason for your unsuitability quite
well, a severe shortage of ability to deal with people rather than
machines. There is no doubt you had lost the confidence, respect and
support of the majority of the uk.* community. The problem is that
you failed to understand or acknowledge that and apparently still do.
Making a mistake is not necessarily a reason to remove you as a vote
taker, most people learn from their errors. Making a mistake,
refusing to accept it and continuing to fail to learn from it are
however ample indications of your unsuitability.
It is your high handed, unhelpful and arrogant attitude rather than a
shortage of technical skill which makes you unsuitable. Vote takers,
as has been said often, need to be helpful rather than hectoring.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Molly Mockford
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>
>It's interesting that you should see those as the problems - because
>of course chiark's MTA's strictness has become a non-issue since I
>dropped the idea of using SAUCE for votes, and the discussion of
>checking that the voter can receive email at the voting address had
>not yet concluded when it was made moot.
>
they still are - I am aware that you dropped the idea of SAUCE.
However, in my view, it was those two problems which caused the huge
amount of uproar.
--
Molly
I don't speak for UKVoting. Hey, half the time I don't even speak for myself.
Neil Fernandez
2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
>It was Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:06:28 +0100, and Neil Fernandez
><ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
>| >A newbe may have got away with it, but at the time you were acting the
>| >wrecker.
>|
>| You use such strong language, Justa. It is unwarranted. Someone who
>| writes 'ABSTAIN - BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' is a
>| 'wrecker'? Calm down!
>
>At the time you were doing worse. It was just another part of your
>misbehaviour.
What a hilarious attitude you are striking. I don't think I have been
told off for 'misbehaviour' on network news before :-)
From now on you can be Justa 'He Doesn't Like Misbehaviour' Lurker.
--
Neil Fernandez
Robbie
<n178626...@chch.demon.co.uk> wrote a message in
uk.net.news.management that I am replying to:
>A votetaker needs to act on behalf of the community.
The votetaker acts as a disinterested third party on behalf of the
proponent - he/she takes a vote following the guidelines as voted in
by the community that we serve[1] or by the person/s requesting the
vote.
On top of those guidelines we work as a team and have internal
practices e.g. agreed wordings and layouts for cfv's and results. We
are also shifting towards a central method for the handling of the
vote to ensure that a copy of all communications w.r.t a vote are
kept. We are a pedantic bunch as a whole and can tend to spot holes in
processes (we also miss some, but such are the ways of things).
>Although the
>votetaker need not personally agree with this standard, they must be
>sensitive to the community feeling and be willing to apply the community
>standard.
Indeed - if they didn't then it would soon become apparent and they
would then be subject to the critisism of their peers and the
community.
Robbie - speaking as a member of but not on behalf of UKVoting
--
rob...@arrakis.nu <*> rob...@arakeen.demon.co.uk
want to know about uk.* ? try www.usenet.org.uk
ukvoting webpages http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
Robbie
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote a message in
uk.net.news.management that I am replying to:
>>| There was no abuse. IIRC the box was filled in with 'abstain' followed
>>| by the reason for abstention, in several words of non-abusive text
>>The reason for abstention is not permitted.
>In the debate at the time, ISTR that at least one other
>vote-takers said they didn't take the same line, in the votes they
>conducted.
indeed IIRC this was just before the voting rfd last year, and it had
more to do with freeform voting than actually filling bit's in between
brackets ( the vote was from one of the last upm votes and was from
TBT IIRRC - I had to get clarification of the way he had voted as the
words yes/no or abstain wearn't used ) - it was accepted though. It
was my petty hate of freeform voting that the votetaker had to make a
judgement on the way a vote is cast because of the use of language or
symantics
>That's only your opinion. I have never heard it expressed by a
>vote-taker, even by the vote-taker who disallowed that vote. They took
>the person's entire ballot-paper to be spoiled, which is not the same as
>viewing the voter as having abused the system. Pasting in 'War and
>Peace' between the brackets - now that *would* have been abuse - albeit
>of the vote-taker, not really of the 'system'.
if it hit my system it would be rejected on message size on the
mailbox, I set a sensible limit on the incoming mail of a voting
mailbox e.g. enough for the cfv text in full to be quoted - it would
piss me off if someone did quote it all though.
>As for newbies and regulars, I see things very differently from you, and
>so, I think, do the vote-takers. Vote-takers should - and do - treat
>newbies in EXACTLY the same way as they treat regulars, and it would be
>appalling if they didn't.
actually I've tended to be harder on the regulars - and have other
votetakers on me when I've forgot to put my name and e-mail address in
for instance
robbie
David Damerell
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
<>What I actually said that votes from people who can't follow simple
<>instructions are not important. I think this is patently true. If
<>votes from people who can't follow simple instructions _are_ important
<>we should start a massive outreach program to all the idiots who can't
<>fill in a ballot paper.
>While I do have some sympathy with this view - this is not a view I feel
>a vote taker (or a committee member) can hold and still do the job
>right.
I await your commencement of the outreach program.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
"We have always been quite clear that Win95 and Win98 are not the systems to
use if you are in a hostile security environment." "We absolutely do recognize
that the Internet is a hostile environment." Paul Leach <pau...@microsoft.com>
Justa Lurker
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <38fe5261....@news.bnin.net> (00:44:07, Thu, 20 Apr
| 2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
| >At the time you were doing worse. It was just another part of your
| >misbehaviour.
|
| What a hilarious attitude you are striking. I don't think I have been
| told off for 'misbehaviour' on network news before :-)
You must not have been pating attention.
JL
Martin Keegan
> Martin Keegan wrote on 19 Apr 2000 10:48:20 +0100:
>
> >Isn't his contempt for those he perceives as his technical inferiors
> >part and parcel of the views of his which you say aren't a problem?
>
> He indicated that votes from such people were not important. That comment
Another of his controversial views which is not relevant to his honesty,
probity, and competence _as a votetaker_. He still conceded that he'd
acecpt such votes.
> alone led many to lose confidence in his ability to handle a vote fairly
> and free from bias.
Only cause they for some reason aren't able to separate his politics from
his technical competence. I keep trying to make this point, and you keep
ignoring it.
Mk
James Coupe
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>dropped the idea of using SAUCE for votes
But displayed your true colours regarding your consideration of voters
in so doing.
I quote:
"Are the votes of people who
- have broken mail software;
- don't know that they should chase up mail problems;
- don't follow instructions in the CFV about what to do about mail
problems
really important ? I don't think the votes of people who can't follow
simple instructions are important"[0]
Any vote-taker who does not regard the votes of the electorate as
important, and only believes those with a certain level of clue should
be able to vote, is unfit to be a vote-taker.
By demonstrating such tendencies, you lost *any* confidence that I may
have even begun to place in you. Vote-takers are there to get votes.
Any vote-taker who is even slightly unwilling to do that should not take
a vote.
[0] Message-ID: <TEC*wV...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>
--
James Coupe
Molly Mockford
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes
>In article <QYcX+WA$Db$4E...@obeah.demon.co.uk>,
>James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>>They aren't a problem when they don't affect his ability to take a vote.
>
>We're not talking here about contempt for people with less
>understanding of technology. We're talking about people who have less
>understanding of _anything_, including simple written English. I
>would certainly not want to make it more difficult for
>non-technically-minded people to vote.
>
>Furthermore, I don't have contempt for such people. I just don't
>think that we should base our decisions about voting procedures on the
>idea that the votes of people who can't follow simple instructions are
>as important as those of people who can.
>
So the vote of someone for whom English is a second, or even a third,
language is less important than a vote of someone who speaks, reads and
writes it fluently?
Every vote is of equal weight when deciding whether a vote has passed or
failed. Therefore, every vote is of equal importance when it arrives at
the votetaker, and must be treated as such. The intention of the voter
is paramount, not their technology nor their ability to undertake a
comprehension test on the wording of the CFV.
James Coupe
<mk...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>> He indicated that votes from such people were not important. That comment
>
>Another of his controversial views which is not relevant to his honesty,
>probity, and competence _as a votetaker_.
Yes it is.
A vote-taker is expected to regard all voters neutrally, and follow-up
all votes to the best of their ability. I have no problems with, say,
Alan Ford in this respect (IMO, one of the best vote-takers to deal
with), who conscientiously follows up all invalid ballots, not regarding
any votes as more or less important than others.
--
James Coupe
Darren Meldrum
>Only cause they for some reason aren't able to separate his politics from
>his technical competence. I keep trying to make this point, and you keep
>ignoring it.
I'm not ignoring it.
A votetaker needs to have more than just technical competence. People are
involved. As I said in my earlier response:
"If Ian had been receptive to comments from the start and had shown a small
amount of respect for his fellow votetakers, then he would still be there,
no matter how ludicrous his proposals."
"loss of confidence" is not an easy thing to rationalise. You cannot
program the set of events that would lead to a loss of confidence, in the
same way that you cannot program a set of events to regain that confidence.
The fact remains that a large number of people posting in unnc had lost
confidence in Ian as a votetaker and expressed that view. Eventually he was
unable to retain the confidence of UKVOTING and he had to leave.
IMO once he had dug a trench, built his fortress, fired on his enemies and
declared that he would never surrender, there could have been no other
outcome.
--
Darren Meldrum (dar...@meldrum.co.uk)
Molly Mockford
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>From now on you can be Justa 'He Doesn't Like Misbehaviour' Lurker.
How about you being Neil "Ain't Misbehavin'" Fernandez-Borve?
Neil Fernandez
2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
>It was Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:46:00 +0100, and Neil Fernandez
><ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
>| In article <38fe5261....@news.bnin.net> (00:44:07, Thu, 20 Apr
>| 2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
>| >At the time you were doing worse. It was just another part of your
>| >misbehaviour.
>|
>| What a hilarious attitude you are striking. I don't think I have been
>| told off for 'misbehaviour' on network news before :-)
>
>You must not have been pating attention.
Will you call me supercilious next?
I'm trying to think of other silly remarks used by school-teachers.
:-P
--
Neil Fernandez
Martin Keegan
Well may Ian *regard* the votes of some particular people classes of
person as less important as the votes of others. Surely it is his
*treatment* of the votes which is relevant, not his unconventional
set of prejudices?
Mk
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>In article <bcjrfs86ucvda9e2n...@pink.semolina.org>,
>{R} Richard Ashton <new...@pink.semolina.org> wrote:
>...
>>On your criteria during the recent UK Guidelines vote by my count 14 votes
>>would have to be discarded for failing to strictly follow simple instructions
>>including two from members of the committee.
>
>I think that this is unlikely to be true.
I think it's quite likely to be true, based on evidence in my
posession.
>However, only Richard Ashton has the raw votes and he mustn't release
>them so he can't justify his statement.
Given that it isn't a secret ballot, I don't think there's any reason
why the raw votes couldn't be released by email to a third party, if
necessary. The only reasons they're released in a re-formatted
presentation on the results list are a) because most people only need
to verify a vote, not check the format of the ballot paper, and b)
it's necessary to anti-spam the email addresses when posting them in a
public arena.
Mark
Speaking as a member of, but not for, UKVoting.
--
More pretentious waffle now at http://www.mark.x.tc
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>You use such strong language, Justa. It is unwarranted. Someone who
>writes 'ABSTAIN - BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' is a
>'wrecker'? Calm down!
>
>so, I think, do the vote-takers. Vote-takers should - and do - treat
>newbies in EXACTLY the same way as they treat regulars, and it would be
>appalling if they didn't.
I agree.
I'm not sure what I would have done with a ballot paper with 'ABSTAIN
- BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' filled in. If I'd rejected
it, it would have to be sent back with a rejection notice, which would
presumably have been followed by a new vote with 'ABSTAIN' and nothing
else, which would have been a bit pointless as I'd already have known
that was how you wanted to vote. I could discard it as a spoilt ballot
paper, but that's the same in practice as abstaining anyway, so it
would probably have been simpler to count it as an abstention and be
done with it.
In a real life vote, you can do write pretty much what you want on the
ballot paper, so long as your actual vote is clear and unabiguous, and
I think that the same principle should apply to Usenet votes. The
point of the guidelines is to make it easier for the voter (by making
them aware of the requirements of the ballot so that they don't
accidentally invalidate their own vote), rather than the votetaker. Of
course, a well-written set of guidelines and a well-designed ballot
paper will, in practice, make it easier for both, but the ballot paper
shouldn't be designed for the convenience of the votetaker alone.
rob...@arrakis.nu
Robbie logged on to uk.net.news.management and typed...
>The votetaker acts as a disinterested third party on behalf of the
>proponent - he/she takes a vote following the guidelines as voted in
>by the community that we serve[1] or by the person/s requesting the
>vote.
forgot [1]
[1] we don't just do uk.*
robbie
--
rob...@arrakis.nu
want to know about uk.*? try http://www.usenet.org.uk
ukvoting webpages http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/
John Line
Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 22:06:28 +0100, Neil Fernandez put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
>>
>>You use such strong language, Justa. It is unwarranted. Someone who
>>writes 'ABSTAIN - BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' is a
>>'wrecker'? Calm down!
>>
>>As for newbies and regulars, I see things very differently from you, and
>>so, I think, do the vote-takers. Vote-takers should - and do - treat
>>newbies in EXACTLY the same way as they treat regulars, and it would be
>>appalling if they didn't.
>
>I agree.
>
>I'm not sure what I would have done with a ballot paper with 'ABSTAIN
>- BECAUSE MY PREFERRED OPTION IS NOT HERE' filled in. If I'd rejected
>it, it would have to be sent back with a rejection notice, which would
>presumably have been followed by a new vote with 'ABSTAIN' and nothing
>else, which would have been a bit pointless as I'd already have known
>that was how you wanted to vote. I could discard it as a spoilt ballot
>paper, but that's the same in practice as abstaining anyway, so it
>would probably have been simpler to count it as an abstention and be
>done with it.
If it's the case I'm assuming and my recollection isn't too wildly wrong,
the reason it became an issue was that the ballot paper had several (three?)
distinct issues to vote on. It was (as I recall) treated as a spoilt ballot
paper in its entirety, so that the votes on the other two issues (which were
correctly filled in) were discarded along with the voting choice for the
third issue (which as an abstention made no difference). The fuss was (at
least in part) about whether it was reasonable to reject the choices for all
three issues purely because of of a "technical irregularity" (with perfectly
obvious meaning) relating only to the third.
John Line
--
John Line - Cambridge University Computing Service, Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Internet: jm...@cam.ac.uk Phone: +44 1223 334708 FAX: +44 1223 334679
Justa Lurker
Goodge) wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| Given that it isn't a secret ballot, I don't think there's any reason
| why the raw votes couldn't be released by email to a third party, if
| necessary.
Given that Ian's point is moot and he has swiftly turned into a troll
I see no reason to waste another moment of some expert third party
time attempting to prove to him what he already should know ...
JL
Justa Lurker
wrote in uk.net.news.management:
Attitudes have a way of making it into action.
Trust is the most important qualification in a votetaker.
The attitude violates trust.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| Will you call me supercilious next?
| I'm trying to think of other silly remarks used by school-teachers.
You have called me that before.
JL
James Coupe
<mk...@cam.ac.uk> writes
>Well may Ian *regard* the votes of some particular people classes of
>person as less important as the votes of others. Surely it is his
>*treatment* of the votes which is relevant, not his unconventional
>set of prejudices?
99% of the time, one follows on from the other, IME.
Votes are important. Declaring a vote null and void is an occurence to
be avoided where possible. When it seems likely that this will occur
with a given vote-taker, as was the case here, it seems highly sensible
to prevent them taking a vote in the first place.
For instance, your local MP candidate announces that he *regards* all
women as inferior. I would rather he not get in the position of power
where he can choose *not* to exercise such a view point in the first
place.
--
James Coupe
Denis McMahon
>On 19 Apr 2000 18:27:09 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>[1] I am aware that some people think that best current practice
>>supports direct SMTP from dynamic dial-ups. I disagree with them.
>Well you're entitled to your view, however you are wrong. There are no
>standards that specifically say direct-to-MX mailing is wrong.
True, and it seems that mpost of the UCE/UBE I get these days has gone
from some ISP's dial-up port direct to demons mail spools.
This suggests to me that the less braindead UCE/UBE'rs are currently
using throw-away accounts and using MX lookups to bypass the local
outgoing mailhost to prevent the ISP whose dialup they're using
detecting their spam session in real time.
I don't seem to receive any legitimate email by this route.
Of course, it could be that people round here generally think that a
tool that can defeat UCE/UBE (it would for me if I had a permanent
connection rather than sitting off of demon) is a bad thing.
Personally, I'd be happy if demon were running such a front end to
their email processes, although I guess that it would only force the
UCE/UBE'rs back to hunting for open relays.
Rgds
Denis
Denis McMahon
Felton) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>UKVoting Statement - Ian Jackson
What I haven't seen, in any of the messages on here or that I've just
spent three hours reading on deja news in this group, is any message
written by Ian Jackson that contains any comment that leads me to
believe he will not conduct a vote in an honourable manner.
I can conceive of no other valid reason to dismiss him from UKVoting,
and I believe that UKVoting is irreparably harmed by having done this.
Rgds
Denis
John Line
>
>}As far as allowing the spoiling of one part of a ballot affect
>}independent options, I believe that either path would be acceptable,
>}generally based on how spoiled the ballot was. I trust the votetaker
>}to make the right choice.
>
>Offering a personal opinion here, if the dropping of any vote for these sort
>of reasons would actually change the outcome of a vote then I would seek
>guidance on that vote from UKVoting, if dropping the vote or leaving bits in
>made no overall effect on the result then, yes just choose yes/no and be
>prepared to justify why afterwards if necessary.
Surely the problem with that approach (reasonable though it seems in itself)
is that you cannot know with certainty whether the result would be affected
until the voting period has closed, at which point it is too late to solicit
a replacement from the voter (which is the only option if the result would
have been affected and something - other than ignoring the vote - needs to
be done to resolve it).
I suppose a separate but related (time or lack of) issue is that arguably
soliciting replacement votes in the event of spoiled ballots ("technically"
or totally) is potentially unfair, in that someone who votes in the last
days or even minutes of the voting period is less likely to be contacted in
time to re-vote before voting closes. [I assume that the sender of a
last-minute spoiled ballot wouldn't be allowed to submit a replacement after
the deadline...]
That suggests that a more even-handed "if they get it wrong, that's their
fault" approach would be preferable (since everyone would be treated
equally) - except that it seems clear from recent debate that being helpful
is considered preferable to being technically better, at least unless/until
there's a genuine problem that needs fixing.
Charles F Hankel
As ever, it feels odd to agree with you.
AFAICT Ian put his proposals forward and had them shot down in flames;
he modified his proposals by offering a different mail facility for
votes and I would have thought that this was enough. Regardless of his
views on what constitutes valid e-mail, he made the compromise that
could be reasonably expected.
--
Charles F Hankel
It's only net news but I like it.
Charles F Hankel
>
> My complaints are basically twofold: one is that Robert Felton seems
> to be running ukvoting as a private empire, and the other is that I
> don't think I personally have been dealt with properly.
These are just facts of life that the committee can't do anything about
directly. It's interesting to see the usual sycophants having a go at
your response though.
Neil Fernandez
2000), Justa Lurker </dev/null@?.com> writes:
You are. It is not only used by school-teachers. In fact,
school-teachers are often supercilious.
--
Neil Fernandez
Neil Fernandez
(05:01:32, Fri, 21 Apr 2000), {R} Richard Ashton
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:19:21 GMT, /dev/null@.com (Justa Lurker) wrote:
>
>}As far as allowing the spoiling of one part of a ballot affect
>}independent options, I believe that either path would be acceptable,
>}generally based on how spoiled the ballot was. I trust the votetaker
>}to make the right choice.
>
>Offering a personal opinion here, if the dropping of any vote for these sort
>of reasons would actually change the outcome of a vote then I would seek
>guidance on that vote from UKVoting, if dropping the vote or leaving bits in
>made no overall effect on the result then, yes just choose yes/no and be
>prepared to justify why afterwards if necessary.
Surely a vote-taker should not make assumptions about the result, even
if it looks like it's going heavily one way or the other, before the
voting has closed. Just as judges are not supposed to act on a view that
the case is going one way or another until they've heard all of the
evidence. Who knows, maybe there will be a large number of votes in the
closing minutes that will swing the result. Deciding, during a vote,
what to do with a ballot-paper on the basis of what the voter has voted
for is not a good idea at all.
My view is that spoiling one box should not affect the counting of
voters' choices in the other boxes. Although I can see that if their
spoiler is so silly (e.g. pasting in 3000 words) as to cause the
software to think 'hey, whatever this is, it's definitely not a vote',
then they have acted abusively. But even then, I guess vote-takers will
be looking at such votes manually.
The issue of whether a spoiler in one box affects the acceptance of
votes in other boxes is more important IMO than the issue of whether the
spoiler in the first box, if it includes the words 'I abstain', should
be counted as an abstention. I'm no great fan of the abstention option,
and have no real problem with 'I abstain' being confused with 'I'm not
voting on this'.
Perhaps what do with spoilt papers, or papers in which there is a
'spoiling' response in one or more boxes, is something UK-Voting could
usefully formulate a policy on?
Have there been any other cases where this sort of question has arisen?
--
Neil Fernandez
Neil Fernandez
2000), John Line <jm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
/
>I suppose a separate but related (time or lack of) issue is that arguably
>soliciting replacement votes in the event of spoiled ballots ("technically"
>or totally) is potentially unfair, in that someone who votes in the last
>days or even minutes of the voting period is less likely to be contacted in
>time to re-vote before voting closes. [I assume that the sender of a
>last-minute spoiled ballot wouldn't be allowed to submit a replacement after
>the deadline...]
/
I agree. The same issue could be pointed to with regard to
acknowledgements. Part of the reason for acknowledgements is for voters
to know that their paper has arrived and is acceptable by at least
certain technical criteria. If they vote early, and don't get an
acknowledgement within a few days, they will know that something has
gone wrong, in good time. If they vote just before the close, they won't
have time to correct the error. This in itself need not be a great
problem. If they vote late, well, they should accept the consequences.
The voting has got to close some time, and it should be the same time
for everybody. But to the extent that individual vote-takers are allowed
to choose their criteria for exercising discretion during a vote itself,
with regard to what do do about errors, this may become an issue, and
even one that enmires vote-takers. We should try to avoid this IMO.
--
Neil Fernandez
Dave Mayall
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <notice-ukvoting-ian-jackson-20000419010754$7e...@usenet.org.uk>,
>Robert Felton <swi...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>Following a lengthy and detailed discussion on the UKVoting mailing list
>>and within UNNM, and as UKVoting Co-Ordinator, I have decided that Ian
>>Jackson can no longer continue as a member of UKVoting.
>
>FYI, I have made an enquiry to the Committee about this.
I know. To be honest the committee has other matters to deal with
which are more important than your rambling messages.
>It seems strange to me that in order for me to continue as a votetaker
>Robert would require me to agree, for example, that I had `lost the
>confidence, respect and support of the majority of the uk.*
>community'. If I agreed I would surely just resign; how could I agree
>that I'd lost everyone's confidence and respect and then continue as a
>votetaker anyway ?
As you have failed to appreciate that you have lost the confidence of
the overwhelming majority, it became necessary for Rob to sack you.
To be frank, good riddance.
--
Dave Mayall
Andy Mabbett
<mo...@orbs.demon.co.uk> writes
>(avoided Godwin there!)
Does Hitler's law now apply?
--
Andy Mabbett
New newsgroup just created: uk.rec.natural-history
Andy Mabbett
Darren Meldrum <darren...@meldrum.co.uk> writes
>
>The fact remains that a large number of people posting in unnc had lost
>confidence in Ian as a votetaker and expressed that view. Eventually he was
>unable to retain the confidence of UKVOTING and he had to leave.
"had to be pushed"; it seems he didn't have the good grace to stand down
when the lack of confidence in him became obvious.
Paul Martin
>As ever, it feels odd to agree with you.
>
>AFAICT Ian put his proposals forward and had them shot down in flames;
>he modified his proposals by offering a different mail facility for
>votes and I would have thought that this was enough. Regardless of his
>views on what constitutes valid e-mail, he made the compromise that
>could be reasonably expected.
What he said. (To say which feels even odder.)
--
Paul Martin - Jesus College Cambridge CB5 8BL / SPS, 8-9 Jesus Lane
http://cus.cam.ac.uk/~pjm74/ - 01223 339310 - pj...@cam.ac.uk
Barry Salter
>Ah, sorry, I forgot about the secondary votetaker. Perhaps I can have
>a sensible discussion with Barry.
Well I spotted 6 where the ballot hadn't been filled in properly
(leaving blank spaces instead of writing ABSTAIN on various Y/N
proposals, putting an "x" against a single option in each of the
Condorcet-counted proposals and putting the vote on the line under the
space provided being the ones I spotted without going through the
headers), including your own.
In fact, if I'd left the automatic acknowledgements turned on for valid
votes (which I turned off as each vote received resulted in 6 mails
being sent out, 2 to the voter and 2 to each votetaker), the voters in
question would have received a copy of their vote so they could see for
themselves.
(Checks archive)
Right...As you were one of the first lot of voters, you (should have)
received the automatic acknowledgement. It'll be from b.salter@ukvoting,
have "Your vote has been received" as the subject, and timed at 14:41:16
GMT on the 22nd of March.
HTH, HAND
Barry
--
Barry Salter, barr...@salterg.demon.co.uk
PGP Key ID: 0x4AED8F75. Available from <http://wwwkeys.pgp.net>
Also available by mailing pgp...@salterg.demon.co.uk
Read uk.* newsgroups? Read uk.net.news.announce!
Barry Salter
>[1] we don't just do uk.*
>
We also do uk.* with different procedures to normal (e.g. the uk.glb
Moderator Elections, being run by yours truly this year).
Talking of said elections, the results will appear on the "Votes for
other hierarchies" page, rather than the uk.* one...
HTH,
Justa Lurker
<de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| I can conceive of no other valid reason to dismiss him from UKVoting,
| and I believe that UKVoting is irreparably harmed by having done this.
Unfortunately membership in ukvoting is not a diety given right.
(Especially in the view of athiests.) One is included at the will
of the powers that be, who act in a way that maintains TRUST and
confidence in the organization.
In this case UKVoting would be harmed by doing nothing. Ian had a
chance to apologize and move on as a votetaker, but he refused.
JL
Justa Lurker
<ncf@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| In article <8dp4j9$j1q$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk> (08:47:37, Fri, 21 Apr
| 2000), John Line <jm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes:
| /
| >I suppose a separate but related (time or lack of) issue is that arguably
| >soliciting replacement votes in the event of spoiled ballots ("technically"
| >or totally) is potentially unfair, in that someone who votes in the last
| >days or even minutes of the voting period is less likely to be contacted in
| >time to re-vote before voting closes. [I assume that the sender of a
| >last-minute spoiled ballot wouldn't be allowed to submit a replacement after
| >the deadline...]
| /
|
| I agree. The same issue could be pointed to with regard to
| acknowledgements.
Some votetakers will send two acknowledegments ... one upon email
arrival and one upon processing into the vote counting software. The
email arrival ack would help make sure that the voter knows that the
message actually reached the votetaker - without knowing validity, but
at least they know it isn't lost.
The second acknoledgement (processed) is where one would catch an
error (such as an OTT abstain statement or improper response to a
question). If there were some way to process this automatically
(without being too strict and bouncing countable votes) it would help.
Since Ian joined UK Voting I've been playing with an autoresponder
that would be able to give a smart acknowledgement within seconds.
(It would take longer for the mail to transit from voter to processor
back to voter than the actual ack process.) I figured it would help
to understand the errors possible with an automatic script as Ian
proposed. There is a lot involved, but one DOES get an ack that
includes their ballot within minutes of sending a vote.
Now that Ian is moot (and I have other projects) I'll put off the
parsing process. What I'd like to return is a multipart answer form,
to the level of saying...
Your vote in the matter of uk.foo|few.bar will be counted as follows
..
Your Name: FoooyBar
Your Email: f...@bar.co.uk
Your preferences:
On the naming/creation question:
SQ is 1st preferred
uk.foo.bar is 2nd preferred
uk.few.bar and ROD are 3rd preferred (tie)
On the charter question:
The group SHOULD be moderated
...
Of course it will be easier with Y/N/Abstain, but I believe in robust
programming - s a more difficult question is illustrated.
A copy of their actual ballot would be included, along with
instructions on how to revise their vote. As far as how this would
handle a spoiled part ballot, I would probably set all options to
"unknown", process the ballot, and the instructions in the ack would
explain how I would proceed to manually chase up an "unknown".
All of the handling (what to do when) would be cleared by ukvoting of
course.
JL
Alan Ford
<de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What I haven't seen, in any of the messages on here or that I've just
>spent three hours reading on deja news in this group, is any message
>written by Ian Jackson that contains any comment that leads me to
>believe he will not conduct a vote in an honourable manner.
The comment that caused the most shouting was:
|Are the votes of people who
| - have broken mail software;
| - don't know that they should chase up mail problems;
| - don't follow instructions in the CFV about what to do about mail
| problems
|really important ? I don't think the votes of people who can't follow
|simple instructions are important.
Ian refused to retract it or apologise for it. He is still trying to
defend it. But, for a lot of people, it has severely damaged his
credibility to run a vote.
>I can conceive of no other valid reason to dismiss him from UKVoting,
>and I believe that UKVoting is irreparably harmed by having done this.
To work well in UKVoting you also have to be willing to work in a team.
During the discussion here Ian often demonstrated an attitude that would
be rather incompatible with teamwork.
--
Alan Ford * al...@whirlnet.co.uk * http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/
PGP Key: 0x8F807D7D - email p...@whirlnet.co.uk or see keyservers
Demon Newsgroups Info + FAQs: http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/demon/
!! YOUR PRIVACY IS AT RISK. TELL YOUR MP *NOW*! http://www.stand.org.uk/ !!
Charles Bryant
Matthew Vernon <mat...@debian.org> wrote:
>Charles Bryant <n178626...@chch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I presume that people felt that the nature of the arguments showed
>> that Ian did not appreciate the depth of feeling of the community and
>> they therefore didn't have confidence he would be aware of the
>> community's standards to apply.
>
>...and was so unaware of the community's standards that he posted his
>proposed methods to see if they would be acceptable to the community?
The original posting of proposals is irrelevant, it is the reaction
that matters. It would be unreasonable to expect anyone to start off
knowing what people feel, but when someone finds their proposals are
deeply unpopular it is reasonable to expect that they would quickly
revise them, rather than trying to convice nearly everyone else that
they're wrong (when the area of dispute is over a matter of
consensus).
--
Eppur si muove
Denis McMahon
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:29:05 +0100, Denis McMahon
><de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>What I haven't seen, in any of the messages on here or that I've just
>>spent three hours reading on deja news in this group, is any message
>>written by Ian Jackson that contains any comment that leads me to
>>believe he will not conduct a vote in an honourable manner.
>
>The comment that caused the most shouting was:
>
>|Are the votes of people who
>| - have broken mail software;
>| - don't know that they should chase up mail problems;
>| - don't follow instructions in the CFV about what to do about mail
>| problems
>|really important ? I don't think the votes of people who can't follow
>|simple instructions are important.
Irrespective of Ian's beliefs in this area, and whether I agree with
them or not, I don't see that having these beliefs are incompatible
with conducting a vote honourably and correctly.
>Ian refused to retract it or apologise for it. He is still trying to
>defend it. But, for a lot of people, it has severely damaged his
>credibility to run a vote.
Sorry, but there is another perspective out here, and that is that his
ejection has more to do with personality clashes than any perceived
lack of credibility. Specifically, it appears that some members of
UKVoting decided that he shouldn't have voiced his opinions and ideas
publicly, that the committee concur, and that the committee and
UKVoting have decided he must go.
Apart from anything else, I can no longer accept in my own mind that
UKVoting is neutral and independant of the uk committee (although I
believe that there are individual members of UKVoting that would
resign on principle if they were asked to "sing the committees
anthem").
Rgds
Denis
Martin Keegan
> In article <hphufsor96ae9cllv...@news.meldrum.co.uk>,
> Darren Meldrum <darren...@meldrum.co.uk> writes
> >
> >The fact remains that a large number of people posting in unnc had lost
> >confidence in Ian as a votetaker and expressed that view. Eventually he was
> >unable to retain the confidence of UKVOTING and he had to leave.
>
> "had to be pushed"; it seems he didn't have the good grace to stand down
> when the lack of confidence in him became obvious.
He should have stood down if he was unwilling to conduct votes on the
agreed terms. As it happened, effectively no-one agreed with him, and
he therefore had to drop his controversial ideas and would presumably
have conducted votes on the system as established by the curernt
status quo rather than his preferred system.
It appeared at least to me that we had reached this position before
Ian was sacked, hence my conclusion that he was sacked for reasons that
I'd have preferred weren't considered relevant.
The persistent argument is that Ian's view of who should be allowed to
vote is somehow relevant to whether or not he ought to be trusted to
administer the receipt of such votes, which is an implementation role,
not a policy-making one. Do the critics here serious think he's unable
to separate his political views from actual practice?
Mk
Justa Lurker
<{R}@soggy.semolina.org> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
[About my attempts to auto parse votes for the ack.]
| I don't think this is at all difficult for 90 of the votes in the UK
| Guidelines vote, it is the 10% where the voters intent is obvious, but
| no way could an automatic script work.
Which is the second reason why I've put off the parsing. I don't see
bouncing 10% of a large vote because my script cannot read them as
acceptable.
My intent was to have a statement that covered unknowns, explaining
that the votetaker would manually check the ballot to understand what
option was preferred.
| the aim is to count the voters intentions not to score him/her
| on their ability to fill in a form.
Precisely.
| }A copy of their actual ballot would be included, along with
| }instructions on how to revise their vote. As far as how this would
| }handle a spoiled part ballot, I would probably set all options to
| }"unknown", process the ballot, and the instructions in the ack would
| }explain how I would proceed to manually chase up an "unknown".
|
| The problem here is that many people left something like
|
| Proposal D : Nomination of News Administrators
| [ ] (YES/NO/ABSTAIN)
Hmmm. Maybe an 'unknown/abstain - see note at end' marking in the
ack, with the text at the end mentioning the manual checking process.
This would help on lines where the answer was written outside of the
box too.
| }All of the handling (what to do when) would be cleared by ukvoting of
| }course.
|
| Indeed. Another thing that was fascinating about the UK Guidelines vote is
| that quite independently and without discussing it; Barry, a very experienced
| votetaker, and me, a first timer doing the secondary, came to *exactly* the
| same decisions as to what to do with the "different" votes.
Common sense prevailed!
JL
Justa Lurker
<de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote in uk.net.news.management:
| On 21 Apr 2000 21:28:16 GMT, al...@whirlnet.co.uk (Alan Ford) wrote:
| >On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:29:05 +0100, Denis McMahon
| ><de...@pickaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
| >>What I haven't seen, in any of the messages on here or that I've just
| >>spent three hours reading on deja news in this group, is any message
| >>written by Ian Jackson that contains any comment that leads me to
| >>believe he will not conduct a vote in an honourable manner.
| >
| >The comment that caused the most shouting was:
| >
| >|Are the votes of people who
| >| - have broken mail software;
| >| - don't know that they should chase up mail problems;
| >| - don't follow instructions in the CFV about what to do about mail
| >| problems
| >|really important ? I don't think the votes of people who can't follow
| >|simple instructions are important.
|
| Irrespective of Ian's beliefs in this area, and whether I agree with
| them or not, I don't see that having these beliefs are incompatible
| with conducting a vote honourably and correctly.
Then you must be borrowing Ian's blinders. I DO NOT TRUST a votetaker
that does not see every attempted vote as important. I believe that
the consensus has shown that uk.* voters desire votetakers that
consider EVERY ballot, even the malformed, to be IMPORTANT.
As a votetaker (not speaking for UKVOTING) recently said:
"the aim is to count the voters intentions not to score
him/her on their ability to fill in a form"
or choose an ISP, or run a MTA, or be clueful.
| >Ian refused to retract it or apologise for it. He is still trying to
| >defend it. But, for a lot of people, it has severely damaged his
| >credibility to run a vote.
|
| Sorry, but there is another perspective out here, and that is that his
| ejection has more to do with personality clashes than any perceived
| lack of credibility.
All part of the big picture. I see his personality whilst acting as a
potential votetaker being part of his lack of credibility - you seem
to have separated it.
| Specifically, it appears that some members of
| UKVoting decided that he shouldn't have voiced his opinions and ideas
| publicly, that the committee concur, and that the committee and
| UKVoting have decided he must go.
s/voiced his opinions and ideas/made his demands/g
s/committee/uk.\* community/g
The "last straw" as it were was that he started reinterpreting the
guidelines and stating that the guidelines supported his views. Seems
like he was constantly searching for support, and very little could be
mustered.
| Apart from anything else, I can no longer accept in my own mind that
| UKVoting is neutral and independant of the uk committee
It isn't the committee that demanded his removal, it was the consensus
of uk.* posters, and several individuals who emailed UKVOTING
specifically requesting Ian's removal. NOT THE COMMITTEE.
| (although I
| believe that there are individual members of UKVoting that would
| resign on principle if they were asked to "sing the committees
| anthem").
And they have in the past, even though I don't believe the individual
involved should have resigned. That is why I trust UKVOTING. They
put a fair and accurate count above anything else, including
popularity and the committee.
JL