Re: High Rate of ballot rejections this year
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:30:01 +0100 (CET),
>> Peter Karlsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava:
>> gpg: verify signatures failed: unexpected data Encrypted Ballot 1
> Uh, I thank that's me. Does this mean that one cannot cast the
> votes secretly, but must send them unencrypted? Or did I use the
> wrong key (I used your personal key as the recipient)?
My personal key never leaves my non-networked machine; there
is no way that the voting machinery can decrypt that.
Additionally, it would make it much harder for someone
appointed by the project leadership to determine if I was fudging
the vote, or to easily cross check the results.
I suppose we could create a voting key for future elections,
once the last kinks in the vote engine are worked out and debugging
is no longer a top priority (right now, in about 1.5% of balots that
pas the GPG check, my code extracts an incorrectr fingerprint, and
thus the ballot subsequently fails LDPA tests I have to manually
intervene and finagle that (since each step of the voting machinery
is independent, and keeps state on the file system, this is
trivial). I need to debug that, and add facilities to handle a vote
If I am still secretary next year, I'll see what we can do
Bottom line, so far there is no way to encrypt a ballot, and
encrypting it to my key means it shan't get counted.
The face of war has never changed. Surely it is more logical to heal
than to kill. Surak of Vulcan, "The Savage Curtain", stardate 5906.5
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C