Another option is to just make a decision on the next planning council call. But I guess there's no rush... so another vote is possible...
On Apr 30, 2010, at 16:51, John Arthorne <John_Arthorne@xxxxxxxxxx
I don't suppose there is any way to
strip out the bogus user-agents and find out what the numbers would have
looked like from the first vote? I agree with Tom that if we have no way
to determine real votes we'll have to throw both sets of polling results
out. How disappointing that someone would try to game the system on a community
input poll and ruin it for everyone else!
I don't know if any of you watch the naming votes on a regular basis, ...
But I became suspicious, Âasked our webmasters if there were unusual
request patterns, and it turns out there have been many http requests made
from just a few IP addresses, that have some obvious non-browser user-agent
headers ... strongly suggesting some "ballot stuffing" with some
kiddie scripts. While this voting system and process was always meant to
be informal (and not especially secure) I'm afraid I was naive and it has
just been too tempting for some not to play with it, to the point of manipulation.
And, the problem is, there's no way to tell how extensive the problem is.
There's not that much tracing or logging done ... and it'd be pretty easy
for someone to write scripts that were just a little bit more sophisticated,
Âspoof the user agent, and we'd not be able to detect those as fake.
So, what to do? Denis said he could (probably on Monday) add some logic
to the polling mechanism to require a bugzilla login, so we'd be a little
more confident that people voted just once. And I don't think it'd be bad
restrict to only those with bugzilla accounts. But, if we did that, should
we start over? Just give a few days for re-voting or extend the period
for a few more weeks? Or, should we, the planning council, just ignore
the votes and decide a good name ourselves? I don't think moving to doodle
is much help, if I understand doodle's system, since that just required
the user to enter a name, and we never did check that those names are "real"
in any way.
I don't much like any of the alteratives, so I'm hoping some of you have
a clear idea or opinion of what the best course of action would be.
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to
the Eclipse Foundation. ÂTo be permanently removed from this list,
you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.