(Victor Sack) writes:

>Brett Mount > wrote:

>I don't know what the original intent was, but at least for the past
>decade it has been both, in practice. A lot of people over the years
>have been pointing out that the vote may be changed by voting again. I
>think it would be a good idea to adopt the same practice in aus.*

At this point it's mostly a software issue. The voting instructions
are simply appended to a text file as they are received; to allow later
votes to override an earlier vote would require rewriting the file
to delete the older vote and then append the newer vote. As it is,
when a vote comes in, if there's already a vote there for that email
address then the code just throws the new vote away and sends an error
to the email address.

If the voter wants to change their vote they can send me an email.

>> "It's requested that people refrain from discussing the newsgroup after
>> the CFV has been posted. The newsgroup should have been discussed in
>> the RFD period. You should also not promote your proposal during the
>> voting period, nor advise people only how to vote "YES"."

>Ah, I confess that I overlooked this point.

>> I'm unsure of the reasoning behind it- that may be a question better
>> directed to Mr Andrews.

Andrew, not Andrews.

>I hope he will answer. Only the last phrase, perhaps with the addition
>of a similar one about not advising people only how to vote "NO", makes
>sense to me.

Usually the proposer of a vote is interested in getting the vote passed.
These are the people most likely to "advertise" a way to vote YES only.
We haven't had any situation yet where somebody who is not the proponent
takes it upon themselves to promote failing a group vote.

I want to move the voting system to the website as soon as I can get the
code written; there will be one button for YES and one button for NO,
so I expect the issue will disappear.

Nick.
--
http://www.nick-andrew.net/ http://aus.news-admin.org/
I prefer USENET replies. Don't send email copies. Drop the spamtrap to reply.