Heather Brodeur wrote: > Bruce Dawson wrote: > >>BTW: Back in the mid-to-late-90's I was a member of a UG that had a >>vendor try to "take over" by doing exactly this (they wanted to get rid >>of the non-commercialization policy). However, people got suspicious >>when about 30 names showed up one day from the same domain. A more >>sophisticated "attack" is easy, and harder to detect. I believe they >>subsequently required a physical presence at a meeting to vote. > > I'm a bit confused. Did one person make up a bunch of email addresses > at the same company/domain, or did the company ask a bunch of employees > to join/vote? I'd hate to see us have to require physical presence to > vote, I don't think we'd get a representative cross section that way.
I was just a member at the time and don't remember the details. Sorry. In fact, I can't even remember if it was a SwANH, GNSEG, or BCS affiliated group (Jerry Feldman or David Marston might remember the incident). I just remember the incident because I thought it was a novel and innovative way of running a dispersed group, and yet the same old gremlin managed to wreck havoc with the high-tech system as it did with the low-tech systems before it. It also showed me the benefits and problems with having a "universal serial number" like a SSN. Voting is a non-trivial problem. Probably why in the 50,000+ years of human existence, it only came into existence in the last 200, and why we're still having problems with it. --Bruce _______________________________________________ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
