Manoj Srivastava:
> gpg: verify signatures failed: unexpected data
> Encrypted Ballot 1
Uh, I thank that's me. Does this mean that one cannot cast the votes
secretly, but must send them unencrypted? Or did I use the wrong key (I
used your personal key as the r
Manoj Srivastava:
> Bottom line, so far there is no way to encrypt a ballot, and
> encrypting it to my key means it shan't get counted.
That statement sounds a bit harsh. That it *will* not get counted I can live
with, but that it *shall* not? Oh well. Maybe it's just me.
Anyway, I just t
Manoj Srivastava:
> Why is it harsh? I certainly did not mean it to be. It was
> meant to be a statement of fact.
Okay, the use of "shall" instead of "will" just sounded very weird to
me. But then again, English is not my mother tongue, so I might just
have misunderstood it.
> Conta
Christine Stockdale:
> So, where's the prize?
There's a list of awards and prizes won by Debian at
http://www.debian.org/misc/awards>. If we've missed any, feel free
to contact debian-www@lists.debian.org with the details.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
I do not read or respond
Manoj Srivastava:
> If people cannot understand:
> "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
> able to decrypt your message."
> they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.
To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in
Manoj Srivastava:
> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I shall ... They will.
> I will ... They shall.
I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going
to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not", not the
sense that you do not want it to have
Richard Braakman:
> The +(INS|DEL) part means that INS and DEL can occur anywhere in
> a BODY or its children.
Yes, but they can only contain block or inline content, of which LI is
neither. UL can contain an INS, yes, but an INS cannot contain an LI.
validator.w3.org has validates using the SGM
Anthony DeRobertis:
> Anyone know why, exactly, we're subscribed to this list? Spam?
Yes. There were more Debian lists that got the notice. I've seen this
before with other lists that were used to send spam. I kept logging in
and deleteting the lists from the intereface, and the operators kept
ad
Anton Zinoviev:
> > VoteNumber: 159 <-- this is new information.
Standard procedure to do secret votes in other communities where secret
electronic votes[1] have been wished has been for each voter to supply
their own secret password (any alphanumeric string), which was then
published along wit
Raul Miller:
> This makes a lot of sense, and (with the addition of a system
> supplied counter) is basically what John Robinson proposed.
Yes. I just wanted to tell you what has already been done elsewhere. I
just forgot that the list of who voted should also be listed, separate
to the list of
Martin Schulze:
> http://beta.hardware.no/~tfheen/debian-debate.{html,txt}
Hmmm, could someone please decrypt the aliases used so I can know who
says what?
--
\\//
peter - I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law
Anthony DeRobertis:
> Hmmm? See time stamp 15:05. After that they are called 'bdale',
> 'Branden', and 'Raphael'
Ahh. I see. I only looked at the first page and saw the aliases. Silly me...
--
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swed
Manoj Srivastava:
> gpg: verify signatures failed: unexpected data
> Encrypted Ballot 1
Uh, I thank that's me. Does this mean that one cannot cast the votes
secretly, but must send them unencrypted? Or did I use the wrong key (I
used your personal key as the r
Manoj Srivastava:
> Bottom line, so far there is no way to encrypt a ballot, and
> encrypting it to my key means it shan't get counted.
That statement sounds a bit harsh. That it *will* not get counted I can live
with, but that it *shall* not? Oh well. Maybe it's just me.
Anyway, I just t
Manoj Srivastava:
> Why is it harsh? I certainly did not mean it to be. It was
> meant to be a statement of fact.
Okay, the use of "shall" instead of "will" just sounded very weird to
me. But then again, English is not my mother tongue, so I might just
have misunderstood it.
> Conta
Christine Stockdale:
> So, where's the prize?
There's a list of awards and prizes won by Debian at
http://www.debian.org/misc/awards>. If we've missed any, feel free
to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the details.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
I do not read or respond to mail w
Manoj Srivastava:
> If people cannot understand:
> "Do _NOT_ encrypt your ballot; the voting mechanism shall not be
> able to decrypt your message."
> they should not be getting a say in amending our constitution.
To me, the meaning seems clear: The voting software is located in
Manoj Srivastava:
> I think you need a better grammar book.
> I shall ... They will.
> I will ... They shall.
I thought your intent was to use it in the sense that it is not going
to have the option (passive), which would be "it will not", not the
sense that you do not want it to have
Richard Braakman:
> The +(INS|DEL) part means that INS and DEL can occur anywhere in
> a BODY or its children.
Yes, but they can only contain block or inline content, of which LI is
neither. UL can contain an INS, yes, but an INS cannot contain an LI.
validator.w3.org has validates using the SGM
Anthony DeRobertis:
> Anyone know why, exactly, we're subscribed to this list? Spam?
Yes. There were more Debian lists that got the notice. I've seen this
before with other lists that were used to send spam. I kept logging in
and deleteting the lists from the intereface, and the operators kept
ad
Anton Zinoviev:
> > VoteNumber: 159 <-- this is new information.
Standard procedure to do secret votes in other communities where secret
electronic votes[1] have been wished has been for each voter to supply
their own secret password (any alphanumeric string), which was then
published along with
Raul Miller:
> This makes a lot of sense, and (with the addition of a system
> supplied counter) is basically what John Robinson proposed.
Yes. I just wanted to tell you what has already been done elsewhere. I
just forgot that the list of who voted should also be listed, separate
to the list of v
Martin Schulze:
> http://beta.hardware.no/~tfheen/debian-debate.{html,txt}
Hmmm, could someone please decrypt the aliases used so I can know who
says what?
--
\\//
peter - I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law:
Anthony DeRobertis:
> Hmmm? See time stamp 15:05. After that they are called 'bdale',
> 'Branden', and 'Raphael'
Ahh. I see. I only looked at the first page and saw the aliases. Silly me...
--
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedi
24 matches
Mail list logo
