[PDB-gov] Vote collection and counting
dave at temk.in
Fri Nov 6 12:52:22 PST 2015
We agree on so much - but "I think it's hard" isn't really a reason to not
use an impartial vote counting mechanism. What if Richard runs for the
Board? How do you then fairly select another party?
List of familiar organizations known to use BigPulse:
We have representatives from many of those organizations on this list; I'm
confident that they are all willing to lend a hand in getting it set up.
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and sponsor the cost.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
> As we navigate the minefield of differing viewpoints, the overriding goal
> here is legitimacy. I am motivated to run this election in a manner which
> will not be challenged by reasonable people. Thus I want to make sure you
> and anyone else are satisfied with the fairness and openness of the
> In regards to my conflict of interest, it is important to repeat to all
> here, members and candidates, that a future Board may choose to pay me for
> organizational and/or financial services. I am motivated to do a good and
> honest job, both because it is the right thing to do, and because it may
> reflect well on me in the eyes of a future Board. I also understand that
> I may not be retained, regardless of how well this process goes.
> The plan I negotiated between Richard Turkbergen, Patrick Gilmore, Aaron
> Hughes and Matthew Griswold, as part of having an open election, is to
> have ballots go to secretary at peeringdb.com, with the alias being staffed
> by Richard Turkbergen, Patrick Gilmore, and myself.
> The benefit of having multiple parties receive the secretary@ emails is to
> provide an auditing mechanism.
> An issue has been raised in regards to Patrick receiving the emails, since
> Patrick has also declared for the Board. (He is one of the nine present
> Patrick has agreed to be removed from secretary@, and that removal has
> been completed.
> That means that both Richard Turkbergen (née Richard Steenbergen, the
> original creator of PeeringDB) and myself will receive the votes.
> In regards to use of BigPulse or other voting services...
> Keep in mind that an issue we have is that each vote will need to be
> carefully checked to make sure that organizations are not duplicate
> voting. In additional each voter will need to be checked against the
> PeeringDB database to make sure they match the member definition of
> representing an active PeeringDB account.
> I have experience running Board elections by hand, with a spreadsheet, and
> am confident in my ability to do so. I do not have experience in setting
> up a BigPulse or other electronic voting service for a Board election, and
> would be leery of screwing it up, thus destroying the progress we have
> made. I am concerned that a 3rd party runs the same risk.
> In the future Matthew believes he will be able to integrate voting into
> the website itself, so that these issues are handled and vote tabulation
> is automated, but we do not have that for this election. Hopefully it
> will be tested and in place for the proposed April election.
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Dave Temkin wrote:
> > Chris,
> > Given there's a proposed commercial relationship between you and PDB,
> > made by people up for election, wouldn't you call that a Conflict of
> > Interest?
> > Why not BigPulse, with a disinterested party a la most elections
> > -Dave
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
> > Hi Anna,
> > That will be me, per:
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Anna Claiborne wrote:
> > > Hello
> > > Who will be the responsible party for collecting and counting
> the votes
> > > in the upcoming PDB election? I wasn’t able to find any
> reference for
> > > this on https://www.caputo.com/pdb/ in the election statement
> or bylaws.
> > > Apologies if I missed it and it is stated somewhere.
> > >
> > > -Anna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pdb-gov