[AUUG-Talk]: Re: AUUG membership - confirming email address

[Kevin Dawson]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:30:54AM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> 
> > - if someone wishes to prevent the email ballot, they do so in a court
> 
> And a court challenge is exactly what I'm trying to prevent, by insisting 
> that AUUG not do an email ballot if the changes have not been lodged; 
> there's a lot of bush lawyers out there, after all.

I'm not averse to a purely postal ballot - it's less than 50 pieces of
paper to count.  If the collective wisdom says that's the best way, it's
fine by me.

I would like to think of someone challenging, in court, the method
used to determine whether an Association of our size should disolve
when most opinions on the matter are being rationally stated (and by
inference supportive of the process) as being a bit unusual, especially
from what I know of the members.  There comes a point where the
safeguards you put in place start to become burdens instead.  That may
also be pure naïveté, of course.

> Kevin, you'll recall that the WIA tried to do me over some years back,

Most definitely - I didn't want to bog the list down with another company
and its history.

> Given the ease by which email can be forged, I'm curious as to how it can 
> be validated, and how anonymity can be preserved along with voter 
> verification etc.

Agreed, although these issues were not addressed in the rule changes.
Most of them had procedures in place for this ballot - it would have
been a useful test run.

Regarding the text and PDF emails I sent yesterday, the PDF version
had been sitting in AUUG's spam queue for a few hours and it was released
just as I sent the text version.  Apologies for the duplication.

Kevin