<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" class="">sleevi@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class=""><div class="gmail_quote" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:25 AM, philliph--- via Public<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>></span><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex;">I am finding the arguments here rather surprising.<br class=""><br class="">When counting an election, the questions at issue are always<br class=""><br class="">1) Is the person permitted to cast a ballot<br class="">2) What was their intent<br class=""><br class="">So to dismiss ‘intent’ as irrelevant is off the point, to say the least.<br class=""><br class="">In this case we have the concern that there is an audit log so that the votes are public. Which is of course a reasonable requirement. But one that is surely adequately met by post ballot publication.</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No, it's not met by our Bylaws.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Phillip, this isn't a matter of debating intent. We have Bylaws that govern this. They were not followed. Are you representing official Comodo opinion that believes we do not need to follow our Bylaws? </div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">I try to leave questions of law to lawyers precisely because the law is not computer algorithm.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It is not the bylaws at issue here, it is the interpretation of the bylaws, and that is not the same thing at all.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Given who we are, if we want to create a completely automated etc voting system then we should design a protocol and write some code. The current situation providing a use case illustrating the need for parties to be able to verify their vote and know it will be counted.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Given that we instead chose to use a listserve, the protocol equivalent of duct tape, I think we should expect to have to allow for machine error, user error and combinations thereof.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Really, is this what you want to make your last stand on?</div></body></html>