| 1 |
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:16 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich Freeman: |
| 3 |
>> I think the only practical option is to try to prevent something like |
| 4 |
>> this from happening again |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The reason this happened is IMO not just the failure of an election |
| 7 |
> official, but the fact that it's technically even possible. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Why is there any mapping between id and developer name (or why have the |
| 10 |
> election officials access to this mapping... by definition it's already |
| 11 |
> a non-anonymous election then)? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I think it should be clear that this is also a technical issue and needs |
| 14 |
> to be improved. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sure, as much process as technical, but if the elections team is |
| 18 |
looking for something to keep them busy until next year, this might be |
| 19 |
worth some attention. It is also the sort of thing that anybody could |
| 20 |
contribute to. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Heck, we could even migrate the sources to git while we're at it. :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives