Election status

Hi, With 2 days and 15:00:00 left in the voting period at the time of writing, we have 605 ballots received, with 439 votes tallied, of which there are 420 unique voters. 165 ballots were rejected. This is a 27.27% rejection ratio. Given the high number of rejects, it may not b

Election status

Hi, With 2 days and 15:00:00 left in the voting period at the time of writing, we have 605 ballots received, with 439 votes tallied, of which there are 420 unique voters. 165 ballots were rejected. This is a 27.27% rejection ratio. Given the high number of rejects, it may not b

Re: Election status

>>"Sven" == Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sven> Well, i did not yet receive any kind of aknowledgement for my Sven> vote, but as i understood, it should contain some kind of id or Sven> something which i can use to check that the voting script did Sven> its job right. I suspect yo

Re: Election status

>>"Sven" == Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sven> Well, i did not yet receive any kind of aknowledgement for my Sven> vote, but as i understood, it should contain some kind of id or Sven> something which i can use to check that the voting script did Sven> its job right. I suspect y

Re: Election status

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 02:27:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Sven" == Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sven> Was this md5sum not supposed to be sent in the aknowledgement > > ``Supposed'' to be? I don't think that it was decided to > modify the vote system, no. The best I r

Re: Election status

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 02:27:28PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Sven" == Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Sven> Was this md5sum not supposed to be sent in the aknowledgement > > ``Supposed'' to be? I don't think that it was decided to > modify the vote system, no. The best I

Re: Election status

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: >> > Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an "order id", >> > and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were >> > received in, is accepted. So you give the bully the vote he wants, with >> > `one bazillion' in t

Re: Election status

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 10:44, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an "order id", > > and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were > > received in, is accepte

Re: Election status

>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an "order id", >> > and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were >> > received in, is accepted. So you give the bully the vote he wants, with >> >

Re: Election status

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 10:44, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an "order id", > > and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were > > received in, is accept

Re: Election status

On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 17:04, Peter Palfrader wrote: > While we're at it, it would be pretty cool to have a voting protocol > where no one, not even the secretary, can find out other peoples' votes. > Is such a thing possible? Yes. See, for example, my followup to the "vote verification" thread.

Re: Election status

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002, Siward de Groot wrote: > P.S. Manoj never let out that Asterix voted for Raphael ! While we're at it, it would be pretty cool to have a voting protocol where no one, not even the secretary, can find out other peoples' votes. Is such a thing possible?

Re: Election status

Hi ya cunning election frisbee-ers ! Do you think it is important that the vote-results webpage correctly shows coerced votes ? If a voter can be coerced to vote for someone she doesnt want to vote for, then she can be coerced to put a hard-to-find remote exploit in a package she maintains

Re: Election status

On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 17:04, Peter Palfrader wrote: > While we're at it, it would be pretty cool to have a voting protocol > where no one, not even the secretary, can find out other peoples' votes. > Is such a thing possible? Yes. See, for example, my followup to the "vote verification" thread.

Re: Election status

On Thu, 04 Apr 2002, Siward de Groot wrote: > P.S. Manoj never let out that Asterix voted for Raphael ! While we're at it, it would be pretty cool to have a voting protocol where no one, not even the secretary, can find out other peoples' votes. Is such a thing possible?

Re: Election status

Hi ya cunning election frisbee-ers ! Do you think it is important that the vote-results webpage correctly shows coerced votes ? If a voter can be coerced to vote for someone she doesnt want to vote for, then she can be coerced to put a hard-to-find remote exploit in a package she maintain

Re: Election status

On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 10:44, Anthony Towns wrote: > Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an "order id", > and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were > received in, is accepted. So you give the bully the vote he wants, with > `one bazillion' in the o

Re: Election status

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:07:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:59:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > But he will see that his vote wasn't counted, and punish you. How > > can you foil him, without him knowing you foiled him? > > How will he see that, exactly? There

Re: Election status

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:59:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:44:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who "gets to" you > > > before the vote. This see

Re: Election status

On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 10:44, Anthony Towns wrote: > Actually, it's pretty easy. As part of the vote, you have an "order id", > and whichever of these is highest, no matter what order the votes were > received in, is accepted. So you give the bully the vote he wants, with > `one bazillion' in the

Re: Election status

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 03:07:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:59:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > But he will see that his vote wasn't counted, and punish you. How > > can you foil him, without him knowing you foiled him? > > How will he see that, exactly? Ther

Re: Election status

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:44:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who "gets to" you > > before the vote. This seems very hard to defend: the enemy can just > > insist that you send him

Re: Election status

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who "gets to" you > before the vote. This seems very hard to defend: the enemy can just > insist that you send him your signed vote, and let him submit it. > To beat this, you would have

Re: Election status

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 07:49:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew> How about: > > Andrew> - When you vote, you additionally generate a random id and submit it > Andrew>with the vote. > Andrew> - In the vote list, the

Re: Election status

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:59:51AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:44:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > > I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who "gets to" you > > > before the vote. This se

Election status

Hi, Along with the ballot processing statistics available at http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2002.html, we now have a running list of people who have (successfully) voted in the election at http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2002_voters.txt. The list is in alphabetical

Re: Election status

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 01:44:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who "gets to" you > > before the vote. This seems very hard to defend: the enemy can just > > insist that you send him

Re: Election status

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:10:39AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > I grant you that it is susceptible to someone who "gets to" you > before the vote. This seems very hard to defend: the enemy can just > insist that you send him your signed vote, and let him submit it. > To beat this, you would hav

Re: Election status

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 07:49:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew> How about: > > Andrew> - When you vote, you additionally generate a random id and submit it > Andrew>with the vote. > Andrew> - In the vote list, the

Election status

Hi, Along with the ballot processing statistics available at http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2002.html, we now have a running list of people who have (successfully) voted in the election at http://master.debian.org/~srivasta/leader2002_voters.txt. The list is in alphabetical

Re: Election status

>>"Siward" == Siward de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Siward> Howdy Manoj and list ! Siward> Manoj Srivastava wrote: Siward> P.S. You wrote that Mickey Mouse voted for Bdale, Siward>wasnt that a breach of confidentiality !?! Keep your attributions straight: I never sa

Re: Election status

>>"Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew> How about: Andrew> - When you vote, you additionally generate a random id and submit it Andrew>with the vote. Andrew> - In the vote list, the secretary publishes the id next to the vote. Andrew> You can still verify your

Re: Election status

[ I just saw this in DWN. ] Anthony Towns wrote: > On the downside, this allows people to use that info to go up to whoever > they voted for and say "Look, see, I did vote for you {give me that wad of > cash you promised,don't beat me up}", which is theoretically un

Re: Election status

On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 05:33 PM, Siward de Groot wrote: P.S. You wrote that Mickey Mouse voted for Bdale, wasnt that a breach of confidentiality !?! Marvin the Martian voted for Branden, if you care ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsub

Re: Election status

>>"Siward" == Siward de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Siward> Howdy Manoj and list ! Siward> Manoj Srivastava wrote: Siward> P.S. You wrote that Mickey Mouse voted for Bdale, Siward>wasnt that a breach of confidentiality !?! Keep your attributions straight: I never s

Re: Election status

>>"Andrew" == Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Andrew> How about: Andrew> - When you vote, you additionally generate a random id and submit it Andrew>with the vote. Andrew> - In the vote list, the secretary publishes the id next to the vote. Andrew> You can still verify you

Re: Election status

[ I just saw this in DWN. ] Anthony Towns wrote: > On the downside, this allows people to use that info to go up to whoever > they voted for and say "Look, see, I did vote for you {give me that wad of > cash you promised,don't beat me up}", which is theoretically undesi

Re: Election status

Howdy Manoj and list ! Manoj Srivastava wrote: > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > I didnt literally say that it "buys" us something, so i assume that you are really asking what advantage is in letting voters determine the string which identifi

Re: Election status

On Wednesday, April 3, 2002, at 05:33 PM, Siward de Groot wrote: > P.S. You wrote that Mickey Mouse voted for Bdale, >wasnt that a breach of confidentiality !?! > Marvin the Martian voted for Branden, if you care ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "u

Re: Election status

>>"Pete" == Pete Ryland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Pete> Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the voter's email? These are the last 15 mesage ID's generated by my MUA: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Messag

Re: Election status

>>"Sven" == Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sven> Was this md5sum not supposed to be sent in the aknowledgement ``Supposed'' to be? I don't think that it was decided to modify the vote system, no. The best I recall is some discussion last year about secret ballot protocols, but that

Re: Election status

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:17:13PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:57, Pete Ryland wrote: > > > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > > Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the voter's email? > Well, your message ID is: >

Re: Election status

On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:57, Pete Ryland wrote: > > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > > Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the voter's email? Well, your message ID is: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || ^^^ || date ^^^

Re: Election status

"Pete" == Pete Ryland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pete> Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the Pete> voter's email? Because the Message-ID contains identifying material. Look at the References field above -- you'll find enough information that you could identify the originator

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:11:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Siward" == Siward de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Siward> Anthony Towns wrote: > >> > >> But in any event, the problem with doing it that way is that you need > >> to do it before the vote starts, which we haven't

Re: Election status

Howdy Manoj and list ! Manoj Srivastava wrote: > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > I didnt literally say that it "buys" us something, so i assume that you are really asking what advantage is in letting voters determine the string which identif

Re: Election status

>>"Pete" == Pete Ryland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Pete> Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the voter's email? These are the last 15 mesage ID's generated by my MUA: Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Messa

Re: Election status

>>"Sven" == Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sven> Was this md5sum not supposed to be sent in the aknowledgement ``Supposed'' to be? I don't think that it was decided to modify the vote system, no. The best I recall is some discussion last year about secret ballot protocols, but that

Re: Election status

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:17:13PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:57, Pete Ryland wrote: > > > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > > Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the voter's email? > Well, your message ID is: >

Re: Election status

On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:57, Pete Ryland wrote: > > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > > Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the voter's email? Well, your message ID is: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || ^^^ || date ^^

Re: Election status

"Pete" == Pete Ryland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pete> Instead of token, why not just use the message-id of the Pete> voter's email? Because the Message-ID contains identifying material. Look at the References field above -- you'll find enough information that you could identify the originator

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:11:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Siward" == Siward de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Siward> Anthony Towns wrote: > >> > >> But in any event, the problem with doing it that way is that you need > >> to do it before the vote starts, which we haven'

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:02:56PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Drake> Easier for the voter to verify that it's the right md5sum for > Drake> the loginid+vote+token? Otherwise only those intimately > > We have actual develop

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:31:59PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Przebywam na urlopie do 08.04.2002 > /me considers mail-bombing this email address As if that is going to stop his stupid vacation(1)? :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:02:56PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Drake> Easier for the voter to verify that it's the right md5sum for > Drake> the loginid+vote+token? Otherwise only those intimately > > We have actual develo

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 07:31:59PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Przebywam na urlopie do 08.04.2002 > /me considers mail-bombing this email address As if that is going to stop his stupid vacation(1)? :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To

Re: Election status

>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Drake> Easier for the voter to verify that it's the right md5sum for Drake> the loginid+vote+token? Otherwise only those intimately We have actual developers who think taking a md5sum is arcane? I suppose if a simple command line

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:11:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > Easier for the voter to verify that it's the right md5sum for the loginid+vote+token? Otherwise only those intimately familiar with the vote encoding a

Re: Election status

>>"Drake" == Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Drake> Easier for the voter to verify that it's the right md5sum for Drake> the loginid+vote+token? Otherwise only those intimately We have actual developers who think taking a md5sum is arcane? I suppose if a simple command lin

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 06:11:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > And what does that buy us over md5sum(loginid + vote + token)? > Easier for the voter to verify that it's the right md5sum for the loginid+vote+token? Otherwise only those intimately familiar with the vote encoding

Re: Election status

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 23:32:12 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Przebywam na urlopie do 08.04.2002 /me considers mail-bombing this email address []s! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha Debian: * -- To U

Re: Election status

>>"Siward" == Siward de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Siward> Anthony Towns wrote: >> >> But in any event, the problem with doing it that way is that you need >> to do it before the vote starts, which we haven't done. >> Siward> not necessarily, Siward> secretary could ask for these

Re: Election status

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 23:32:12 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Przebywam na urlopie do 08.04.2002 /me considers mail-bombing this email address []s! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha Debian: * -- To

Re: Election status

>>"Siward" == Siward de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Siward> Anthony Towns wrote: >> >> But in any event, the problem with doing it that way is that you need >> to do it before the vote starts, which we haven't done. >> Siward> not necessarily, Siward> secretary could ask for thes

Re: Re: Election status

Przebywam na urlopie do 08.04.2002 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Election status

Anthony Towns wrote: > > But in any event, the problem with doing it that way is that you need > to do it before the vote starts, which we haven't done. > not necessarily, secretary could ask for these keywords separately, and match them to votes by name of voter, if he had the time. ha

Re: Re: Election status

Przebywam na urlopie do 08.04.2002 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Election status

Anthony Towns wrote: > > But in any event, the problem with doing it that way is that you need > to do it before the vote starts, which we haven't done. > not necessarily, secretary could ask for these keywords separately, and match them to votes by name of voter, if he had the time. h

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:33:38PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Another system I saw (many years ago, on fidonet) had the voters submit > > their own keyword when voting. When the results were published, the vote > > was published alongside the keyword (but

Re: Election status

Previously Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Another system I saw (many years ago, on fidonet) had the voters submit > their own keyword when voting. When the results were published, the vote > was published alongside the keyword (but no names). With a lot of people working on a common project to chances of

Re: Election status

On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:55:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > If we're trying to enforce accountability on the secretary, this doesn't > work. For example, if say, Bill and Betty both happen to vote the same > way (123-, say), then you can mail them both the same keyword (foo), > and publish: A

Re: Election status

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 01:33:38PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Another system I saw (many years ago, on fidonet) had the voters submit > > their own keyword when voting. When the results were published, the vote > > was published alongside the keyword (but

Re: Election status

Previously Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Another system I saw (many years ago, on fidonet) had the voters submit > their own keyword when voting. When the results were published, the vote > was published alongside the keyword (but no names). With a lot of people working on a common project to chances o

Re: Election status

On Sun, Mar 31, 2002 at 02:55:45AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > If we're trying to enforce accountability on the secretary, this doesn't > work. For example, if say, Bill and Betty both happen to vote the same > way (123-, say), then you can mail them both the same keyword (foo), > and publish:

Re: Election status

(silly postponed messages folder) On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:43:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I am thinking of setting up a system that mails voting each > developer s random keyword unique to them, and then publishing the > encoded vote data, which should ensure openness and corre

Re: Election status

(silly postponed messages folder) On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 11:43:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I am thinking of setting up a system that mails voting each > developer s random keyword unique to them, and then publishing the > encoded vote data, which should ensure openness and corr

Election status

Hi folks, A status update. A little over 24 hours into the election, 138 messages have been received by the vote taking system. As for the scripts underlying the machinery, the mime handling script is done, and tested. The gpg verification script is undergoing testing (I am trying to s

Election status

Hi folks, A status update. A little over 24 hours into the election, 138 messages have been received by the vote taking system. As for the scripts underlying the machinery, the mime handling script is done, and tested. The gpg verification script is undergoing testing (I am trying to