[Elections-wg] Requirements for the PSF Voting System

Donald Stufft donald at stufft.io
Tue May 26 16:21:17 CEST 2015


Kicking off a thread about what requirements we think we should have for a PSF
voting system.

The first requirement I can think of comes from the PSF bylaws:

    Section 14.8. Electronic Voting. Any vote of the Board of Directors, any
    committee, or the members may be conducted through electronic means and
    shall have the same effect as action taken by written consent; provided
    that such voting mechanism meets the criteria set forth in this Section
    14.8. Any vote conducted through electronic means must be done through a
    mechanism by which both the identity of each voter and the date that such
    vote is made can be verified. No vote conducted pursuant to this Section
    14.8 may remain open for more than sixty (60) days after the commencement
    of the applicable voting period. Each such vote shall have a specific
    approval requirement identified prior to the commencement of such vote,
    which requirement shall not be less than the requirements set forth in the
    corporation's Certificate of Incorporation, these Bylaws or the General
    Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The effective date of any vote
    conducted through electronic means shall be the first date upon which the
    requisite threshold for approval of such action has been obtained.

IANAL, but I read this as stating that we need to be able to verify if a
particular voted or if they did not, and we need to be able to verify when they
voted. I do not read in this a requirement that we know *what* they voted for,
only who and when. I believe this is a hard requirement, since not only is it
in the bylaws, but it's required to support another part of the bylaws:

    Section 4.12. Loss of Voting Rights. A voting member who does not cast a
    vote for four (4) votes within a single calendar year shall immediately
    have his or her voting rights revoked for the remainder of such year.

Beyond that, the bylaws don't make any other requirements on what a voting
system looks like. To get us started I'm going to throw out some things to try
and get a discussion going.

I think that any system we have should not make it available to the general
public who voted for what. I think that if it's public information who voted
for what then people will feel pressured to vote for what's popular or what
has support than for what they truly want to vote for. I also think that it
will cause some people to be a target for others who didn't agree with the
way they've voted.

I think that any system we have should make it possible for the general public
to verify the results of the election given only public information.

I think that any system we have should make it easy for the board, working
groups and committees to also utilize this system for any votes they need to
hold as well if they so choose to do so.

I think we also need to define a threat model we want to operate under and
how important particular attributes are to us. For instance, do we consider
a malicous election administrator to be something we need to protect against?
What about a malicious system administrator? If we're OK with a malicous system
administrator being able to de-anonymize then we don't need any system that's
particularly complicated. A fairly simple web application that just lets
people vote and doesn't display who a particular vote is for (but still records
it) is a simple thing that gets us all of the above, assuming trustworthy
systems administrators. If we want to consider these people within the threat
model then we'll need to look at more complicated systems that rely on the
ability to use cryptography to ensure certain properties.

Defining a threat model is probably the first thing we should do really,
because our threat model is going to dictate what kind of system we're looking
at, whether a simple solution that uses ACL and the software to ensure the
properties we want or a more complex solution that uses math and cryptography
to ensure it.

---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/elections-wg/attachments/20150526/b6114cd4/attachment.sig>


More information about the Elections-wg mailing list