[Osmf-talk] Voting oversight

Simon Ward simon+osm at bleah.co.uk
Sat Aug 20 09:49:51 UTC 2011

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 04:07:53PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
> I don't object but you did miss Shaun McDonald who emailed me personally.
> I would suggest that 3 is unnecessary burden though. Two would work
> just as well. It makes it harder for the members to mail more people
> and it makes more work for checking than I think necessary.

Speaking from past experience, two worked well, which means three people
independently counting the votes (the secretary and the two
scrutineers). Any difference, quite rightly, would need to be checked
and agreed upon. This includes emails that weren’t sent to the correct
addresses because of obvious typos, and I agree with Steve that more
addresses means more work.

Would an alias that forwards to the overseers help this? Or does that
defeat some of the point of having them in the first place?

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20110820/57b8c354/attachment.sig>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list