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@linux.org.au) Vice President, Linux Australia
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part