On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 04:14:34PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
>
>
> You are absolutely right.
> And in fact Don proposes to embody a requirement in the constitution
> that would prevent plausible deniability in favor of allowing voters to
> confirm their v
Felix Lechner writes:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>> If all the DD who votes A>B reveal the secret code returned by devotee,
>> anybody can check they indeed voted for A, and by doing a substraction
>> conclude that all the other voted for B, thus breaking the anonimi
Hi
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:45 PM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> If all the DD who votes A>B reveal the secret code returned by devotee,
> anybody can check they indeed voted for A, and by doing a substraction
> conclude that all the other voted for B, thus breaking the anonimity of
> the vote even f
Hi Sam,
* Sam Hartman [2022-02-17 16:14]:
Would you prefer that we not mandate that voters be able to verify their
votes were counted so that we could have plausibel deniability?
Are there aspects of DPL elections that make this less of an issue for
DPL elections than other issues?
The way I
> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
You are absolutely right.
And in fact Don proposes to embody a requirement in the constitution
that would prevent plausible deniability in favor of allowing voters to
confirm their votes were counted.
And yet, we've been living with this trade off for DPL
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 09:50:17AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> TL;DR: I'm proposing that the way we handle DPL elections today is a
> good start for what secret means.
Alas it does not work since it does not provide plausible deniability.
Let me explain. For DD election, devotee publish a vote
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> [*] I do want to acknowledge, however, that having the
Russ> *capability* for verification even if almost no one uses it
Russ> routinely does provide real protection against shenanigans,
Russ> since it means should anyone suspect shenaniga
Holger Levsen writes:
> And furthermore & sadly this confirms my feeling that some want to push
> 'secret ballots' into Debian...
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by this, I think. We're
openly having a preliminary discussion of a GR to add secret ballots to
Debian, so yes, clearly
> "Holger" == Holger Levsen writes:
>> He asked that in a thread discussing stuff related to the project
>> secretary, and I didn't think an answer belonged there.
Holger> However that thread has 'secret ballots' in it's subject, so
Holger> I still find it very relevant to th
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 05:54:45PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> However that thread has 'secret ballots' in it's subject, so
> I still find it very relevant to the topic discussed there, so
> I'm slightly put off as being described asking offtopic stuff.
actually, not only in the subject, that ve
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 09:50:17AM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Holger asked what I meant by secret.
> So I'm starting a separate thread.
I'm very fine with this, thank you.
> He asked that in a thread discussing stuff related to the project
> secretary, and I didn't think an answer belonged there
11 matches
Mail list logo
