- From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 12:37:38 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA1s49W7WTrG1m0-+mk457xiz5yEgeUy4M-MWi7-Z0jOrZUH8Q@mail.gmail.com>
It seems to me that if a time is specified in an international technical forum, such as this one, that one should assume that it is UTC/GMT time unless a time zone is provided. Thus, if there are any objections to the poll closing when it did, the objection should be that polling closed too late, not too early. Note: This is merely a comment. I make no objection. bob wyman On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 12:13 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 8/20/21 6:11 PM, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) wrote: > > p.s. I don’t want to see the existing votes thrown out. I'll withdraw my > > objection first. > > Good to hear, this is the sort of consideration to the burden put on the > rest > of the community that we like to see with any principled objection. > > To be crystal clear about how I feel about your objection (because I do > think > it would be healthy for someone in the community to acknowledge how > misguided > this objection is): > > * The poll and timing was announced four weeks in > advance. > > * The poll opening date and duration was announced on the > weekly calls (and in the minutes) multiple times. > > * There was ample opportunity to vote (it was open for a > week, with a week preceding the vote to review the > options, and then two weeks preceding that to provide > options). > > Yes, I failed to mention the time zone. However, if you're counting on a > time > zone to argue the technicality of THIS vote, I don't expect that you'll get > much sympathy as there were seven 24 hour periods where you could have > voted > remotely and you didn't. > > To then raise a principled objection over an optional poll that is > non-binding > and that is just meant to collect information for the community, thus > generating even more work for the community, is... in my not so humble > opinion > ... an abuse of the principled objection process. > > With all that said, here's an option: > > There are two people that have emailed to say that they missed the poll and > intended to vote (one of them privately). If both of these individuals are > willing to 1) send their votes to the mailing list and 2) tally and > cross-check the final rankings (thus taking on the burden of the work > you're > asking the community to do), then we can count those two additional votes > as > long as someone from the community doesn't object to that process. > > > Caveat: There is a remote possibility that I may have also voted already > > but I have no recollection of this and no emailed receipt that I can > find > > (for example). I wasn't able to verify this at 11:26pm last night. > > Since all the votes are anonymized and lack time stamping information (in > order to ensure that votes can't be correlated to individuals) there is no > way > for me to tell from the poll data. > > So, if you voted and forgot, then it'll be impossible to detect the > double-vote. > > > Can I email in my vote? > > Yes, if you do the work to recalculate the Borda counts across all the > votes. > Let's see if the other individual wants to cross-check your votes (or we > have > another volunteer) and go from there. > > In the meantime, I'll publish the final tallies to the mailing list so we > have > them. > > Do you want to proceed with the manual vote process above? > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) > https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ > >
Received on Saturday, 21 August 2021 16:38:03 UTC