[PDB-gov] Vote collection and counting

[Steven Feldman]

I think it's a good idea.  I'm also willing to help with the election
committee if needed, since I'm not a candidate.
     Steve


> On Nov 6, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
>
> Great points.
>
> If the consensus here is to use BigPulse, I'm in and will do what the
> community wants.
>
> Any objections to using BigPulse?
>
> Chris
>
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2015, Dave Temkin wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> NANOG
>> Torix
>> Open-IX
>> AMS-IX
>> RIPE
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
>>      Dave,
>>
>>      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
>>      process.
>>
>>      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
>>      candidates.)
>>
>>      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.
>>
>>      Chris
>>
>>>      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 committees?
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
>>>        Hi Anna,
>>>
>>>        That will be me, per:
>>>
>>>          http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/2015-October/000013.html
>>>
>>>        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
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov