CAcert System Admins discussion list

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 26/04/11 8:23 PM, Philipp Dunkel wrote:
> Ok everyone,
>
> here is how I modified the VoteBot. I hope this is sufficient for our 
> requirements.
>
> An Operator sends a DM to the VoteBot formated like "vote<topic of the vote>"
> At this time the vote starts. People may vote either publicly by sending 
> their vote to #vote as we have done before or secretly by sending a DM to the 
> VoteBot.
> When a vote is received in #vote it is acknowledged including its value to 
> #vote.
> When a vote is received privately it is acknowledged to #vote without its 
> value and in a private message to the voter including its value. So everyone 
> can check whether their vote was interpreted correctly.
> At the end of a vote the VoteBot tallies the votes and send a Direct message 
> to the person that started the vote for every single vote that was counted. 
> And presents the sums to #vote.
>
> So if we have an independent person that acts as an auditor for the votes, we 
> can do so by simply having them start the vote, which is trivial to do.
> As before reminders and vote closing is done automatically, so the auditing 
> person really only has to start the vote and record the outcome.
>
> here is how the actual voting syntax works (for those who have not 
> participated before):
> Simply send a message to #vote (or directly to the bot if a vote has been 
> opened):
>
> If you send a vote value to the bot (see below for values) it is your vote 
> that is counted:
> "aye" or "yes" or "oui" or "ja" means you vote aye
> "naye" or "no" or "non" or "nein" means you vote naye

Nice feature :)  One tiny thing:  there are two spellings for Naye; 
also Nay.  I think it's another colonies v. ex-colonies thing.

(I actually switched to the latter spelling in the wiki because 
searching for Aye was more complicated when Nay is spelt Naye...)

> "abstain" or "enthaltung" or "enthalten" means that you abstain
>
> proxy<UserName>  <value>  does a proxy vote for someone else. (<UserName>  is the 
> full name of your Proxy,<value>  is the same as for your own vote.
>
> There are a few additional commands:
>         "vote<topic>  starts a vote on<topic>"
>         "cancel" cancels a vote (may only be used when a vote is running and 
> by the person that started it
>         "quit" kills (and restarts) the votebot (may only be used when no 
> vote is running)
>         "warn<number>" warns of an impending closure to the vote<number>  
> seconds after the vote has been opened (may only be called when no vote is running, default is 90)
>         "close<number>" closes the vote<number>  seconds after the warning 
> (may only be called when no vote is running, default is 30)
>         "help" shows these commands (may only be called when no vote is 
> running)
>
> Regards, Philipp
>
> P.S.: The thing is live right now, so that anyone can test it. I have also 
> attached a ZIP file with the entire source code, if anyone wants to verify 
> that.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23.4.2011, at 15:41 , Ian G wrote:
>
> > On 23/04/11 6:50 PM, 
> > ulrich AT cacert.org
> >  wrote:
> > > Hi Ian,
> > >
> > > why do we need an Auditor ?
> >
> > Because someone will complain that what they can't see was manipulated.  
> > That's the point of a secret ballot -- to avoid the manipulations that happen 
> > in an open ballot.
> >
> > > we have the members register.
> > > This can be added to a table "potential allowed voters"
> > > as secretary checks this list at start of the meeting
> > > to voice the members, the same can be done with the
> > > "potential allowed voters" to enable each voiced
> > > member ...
> > > later on voting, the voter can be compared against
> > > the voiced members table
> > > is this easy, isn't it ?
> >
> >
> > This doesn't say whether they voted AYE or NAY.
> >
> > > Verification is in the public channel ...
> > > xyz voted.
> > > where xyz is the name of the voter
> > > the ballot is hidden to the votebot
> > > the validity of the vote is given by
> > > votebot: elements Aye, Naye, Abstain
> > > that are allready on the valid ballots list
> >
> >
> > PD runs the votebot.  He knows what the ballot is.  He's in control of the 
> > code.  All he needs to do is change the code to make sure that random votes 
> > are swung another way.
> >
> > (Secretary sees the voters.  All he needs to do is add in some extras. Or 
> > drop some that didn't make it.)
> >
> > Also, recall, the law has changed.  The result on the day is the result that 
> > counts.  So any errors are dropped.  Sooooo...... if the losing side sees an 
> > error, the law pushes it aside.  Which forces them to complain more.  We 
> > should strive to eliminate the possibility for errors beforehand, if there is 
> > any possibility of complaints.
> >
> > (BTW, just for avoidance of doubt, the "auditor" is nothing to do with any 
> > other auditor, it's someone totally independent of the situation.)
> >
> > All this person needs to do is look at Votebot's sums, and say, yes, I see 
> > voting by N people, and this count is X Ayes, Y Nayes.  If there is any 
> > challenge, auditor writes to people to confirm their vote.
> >
> > At a minimum I'd insist on Votebot recording a log of what it counted, so we 
> > could file dispute to have an Arbitrator (w/out conflicts) look at the 
> > results...
> >
> >
> >
> > iang

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature