Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 21 November 2013 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F15F81AE22D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:11:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cv7S5NdPFFGO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611A81AE1F9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:11:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-vpn3-1087.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0614822E1F4; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:10:58 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <hshs89d8rv4ju4u9kr98hb8us23ve72ol1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:11:34 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B7461ABB-DC64-43B9-8749-FB2FF3DEBB0E@iii.ca>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <hshs89d8rv4ju4u9kr98hb8us23ve72ol1@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:11:14 -0000

On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>; wrote:

> * Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Balloting:
>> - The voter MUST rank ALL alternatives in their ballot from the most
>>  preferred, marked with rank 1, the second most with 2, all the way
>>  to the least preferred marked with rank N.
>> 
>> 4) When the voting period is over the ballot collector will publish the
>> results as well as all ballots, including the voters name to the RTCWEB
>> WG mailing list. This enables all voting individuals to verify that
>> their ballot is unmodified. And allows anyone to verify the result of
>> the vote.
>> 
>> 5) The selection is recorded in the drafts.
>> 
>> --- End of Process Proposal ---
> 
> I think this needs to say how invalid ballots are handled. It seems easy
> to assign the same rank twice, for instance.
> -- 

Good point - would you be OK if the  vote collector notices a problem, they can email the voter and see if they want to correct it, but any invalid ballots that are not correct by the end of voting period will be discarded ?