While we are on this topic. If it was possible to simultaneously send the results to 3 separate servers to be compared at the end, would this be nearly the same as a neutral third party? Jim Shari Handley wrote: > > For me, this just creates more questions: > > How does one define a "neutral third party"? For the sake of argument, who > is to say whether anyone, *including* RootsWeb, is or is not neutral? How > would we go about trying to find another server willing to accomodate us, > work closely with the election committee, build and maintain election > software, take all the flak that is bound to fly, and all the other things > needed - for free? Good luck! Jim indicated that the software used in > the runoff worked very well and was easy to administer. Would we be able to > use it on another server? > > Also, was there any evidence at all that RootsWeb acted in anything other > than a > neutral manner in any of the preceding elections? > > Shari > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > To: BOARD-L@rootsweb.com <BOARD-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 9:21 PM > Subject: [BOARD-L] Re: Question for you > > >In response to the question the Board wanted asked of Fred: > > > >>Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 05:06:25 -0700 > >>From: Fred Smoot <dogtrot@well.com> > >>Organization: Dog Trot X Press > >>To: Tim Stowell <tstowell@chattanooga.net> > >>Subject: Re: Question for you > >> > >>Tim Stowell wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Fred, > >>> > >>> The Advisory Board respectfully wishes to know: what action you wanted > to > >>> see taken in response to your protest? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Tim > >> > >>Dear Tim, > >> > >>The most simple way to resolve the issue is this: > >> > >>If the USGenWeb Project Advisory Board will act in good faith to require > >>a neutral third party to conduct our future national elections, I will > >>withdraw my protest. ("Run-off Election: Formal Protest," dated 31 Aug > >>1999) > >> > >>Fred Smoot > >> > >> > > > >