My original was rejected by the list with:
The reason it is being held:
Message has implicit destination
Does anyone know why?
--------- Original Message -------- From: Éibhear ifso@gibiris.org To: Ian Clarke ian@locut.us, fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: [Fsfe-ie] E-Voting letter and IFSO logo Date: 08/04/04 16:14
--------- Original Message -------- From: Ian Clarke <ian@locut.us>
> Well, I know it isn't a popular opinion on this list, but I think
that
> making the e-voting source code public is a distant second to voter > verified audit trails and I am concerned that advocating the > "nice-to-have" will only reduce our chances of getting the > "need-to-have".
I tend to agree. Publicly, the opposition to the proposed electronic
voting
system should hammer relentlessly on at the requirement for VVAT. This is more required because the Government is now using underhand tactics to
press
their position: for example, referring to the ICTE as anti-globalisation types, declaring that those opposing are uninformed (despite well
researched
and detailed oppositions), refusing to meet those opposed while at the
same
time declaring they don't want to get involved in the process of
introducing
electronic voting.
However, it could be said that IFSO is not doing its part by not promoting the obvious advantages a free software solution for electronic voting,
once,
and only, after a VVAT has been introduced. This is why I think the letter proposed by Cathal is a good idea and should be sent -- it gives
politicians
another reason to oppose the proposed system and lights another fire in their bellies. I agree that if we started writing letters to newspapers or making press releases or speaking on radio talk shows, we'd scupper the ICTE's work. Appealing directly as an expert focus group to candidates, though, narrows the scope of the effort in the best possible way.
Remember,
politicians talk to each other away from the microphones more than in
front
of it. It's for that reason that I suggested to the Green Party candidates
I
met a few weeks ago to cast doubts in the minds of PD candidates during
the
upcoming campaign. If they express further doubts to each other, then there'd be a better chance of a "grass-roots" effort to stall
the ball on
this one.
For my own opinion, by the way, I prefer the current system above all, because I'm not so sure it's that badly broke.
Éibhear
-- Éibhear Ó hAnluain IFSO Ireland.
"Éibhear" ifso@gibiris.org writes:
My original was rejected by the list with:
The reason it is being held:
Message has implicit destination
Does anyone know why?
The "To: " line of your other message was:
'To: "Ian Clarke" ian@locut.us, "fsfe-ie@fsfeurope.org"@m1.name2host.com'
(The single quotes and preceding space were added by me to prevent my mua from munging the line. Drop me a mail if you think there's a list problem, this hasn't happened before but it looks like a glitch at your end.)