On Mon, 06 Mar 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:26:34AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > >> Which only goes to show that you really do not understand > > >> how Debian works. Are you not aware that vote have already been > > >> audited before? That anyone with root on master already has access > > >> to all ballots? That the DPL's can ask an audot to be poerformed > > >> anyway? > > > I didn't see such a specific DPL power in the constitution. Would it > > > fall under the general phrasing of 5.1.4? > > I would think so. That is a general catch all. > > Really, for public votes, just about anyone could reasonably request > the information necessary to do an audit if they thought it was that > important -- it's only for DPL votes that there's any point keeping > any of the information secret.
Indeed; in fact if this is really a big deal it may be useful to just make the mailbox acessible[1] after the fact for the non-DPL elections. > I guess the decryption key for encrypted ballots would be of some > issue, but that's about it. Presumably the decryption key could be unlocked after the election and placed alongside the balots; since it should expire and be revoked after the completion of the vote, this shouldn't pose much of a problem. Don Armstrong 1: I'm always one for drowning budding conspiracy theorists in mounds of data, though. -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]