Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 24/10 10:29 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 00:57 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:40 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:38 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:32 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:27 +1 Re: Software initiatives
Latest posts
- 24/10 10:29 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 24/10 00:57 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:40 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:38 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:32 +1 Re: Software initiatives
- 23/10 17:27 +1 Re: Software initiatives
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Software initiatives
-
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
> -I’m fine with that and such parallell running can be used. > But. for legal resons we cannot see this as test environment once using > it for making laws etc. > In that stage there must be a core soft with as little bugs as > possible.
You seem to assume the bugs of a groups of parallel softwares is all bugs existing in any of the softwares. But infact the bugs of the group is only the ones existing in all softwares. Do you see why it makes total sence to use not one but a group of parallel software for a prodution environment (making laws)?
+2
-
But how shall a two result situation be handled when we have an
important vote?
And who will handle it?
+1
-
On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > But how shall a two result situation be handled when we have an > important vote? > And who will handle it?
You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)
+1
-
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 05:36:54PM +0200, ketty wrote:
> On 10/23/06, MG <magnusgus@gmail.com> wrote: > > But how shall a two result situation be handled when we have an > > important vote? > > And who will handle it? > > You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)
Or try to come to a consensus.
As already happens in all voting offices.
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
+1
-
>> You could use a selected board for that if you want to :)
-See?
>Or try to come to a consensus.
As already happens in all voting offices.
-Is it? And what even if so, if we call a discussion of a badly written or torn ballot a “software problem”, isn’t the people in that voting office a trusted board?
+1
-
> > > You could use a selected board for that if you want to :) > > See?
Of course you could, but it is bad engineering.
> > Or try to come to a consensus. > > > > As already happens in all voting offices. > > Is it? And what even if so, if we call a discussion of a badly written > or torn ballot a “software problem”, isn’t the people in that voting > office a trusted board?
They are not a trusted board.
They are all willing people and parties. They reach a consensus.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
-
-
-
-
> > They don’t leave software development to opensource community and > > just bring them in as another redundance improver.
There are plenty of ways to make software. But, for verifiability there is no need for a complex and complete thing, as serge stated, a spreadsheet should do the trick.
> > I’m fine with that and such parallell running can be used. > > But. for legal resons we cannot see this as test environment once using > > it for making laws etc.
We already use a decentralized and consensual system (polling stations). Where would the laws conflict with how the laws are made?
The entity responsible for votes, in a democracy, is the demos… Isn’t that quite logical? :-)
> > In that stage there must be a core soft with as little bugs as > > possible. > > You seem to assume the bugs of a groups of parallel softwares is all bugs > existing in any of the softwares. But infact the bugs of the group is only the > ones existing in all softwares. Do you see why it makes total sence to use > not one but a group of parallel software for a prodution environment (making > laws)?
+1
echarp – http://leparlement.org/security
+1
-
