[Linux-aus] Matter of the SGM

[Stewart Smith]

On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 18:54, Leon Brooks wrote:
> There was considerable debate on whether we should require signed email 
> or not.

Yeah - it was bordering on off topic - as the specifics of the
interpretation of the text in the constitution is basically decided by
the committee - and there is no doubt that they (we) would be failing in
our duty if we did not ensure that the voting system was secure.

There is a problem with GPG signed mail as well - it makes anonymous
voting impossible.

And before people jump on me, there is solid, provable AND SECURE ways
to do this (and also provide verification, and a route, should the voter
opt-in, to verify what/who they voted for). I'd suggest looking up the
maths behind Electronic Cash systems. I'll talk with ctte about the
possibility of such a system and post up some of the math behind it,
should it be deemed a reasonable proposition. But, it WOULD REQUIRE
CODING, so maybe it's a long term thing, as LUV's voting code works
pretty good.
-- 
Stewart Smith (stewart at linux.org.au)
Vice President, Linux Australia

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20040116/71464978/attachment-0001.pgp