I think I must side with Kevin on this.  I cannot think of any good reason
to have different membership levels or signed voting.  I don't see any
security "threat" that warrants such measures.  Would it be cool?  Sure.
But we don't need it.  YAGNI

For example, what if 30 Windows NT user groupies showed up one meeting and
voted all kinds of stupid stuff like giving MS equal treatment.  How long
would it take for the "real" members to either laugh them out, kick them
out or walk out and "re-create" PLUG back the way it was?  Except for some
kind of prank, why would anyone want to do such a thing anyway?  PLUG is
not rich or powerful (exept in the people that participate).  There is
nothing to be gained by attempting a coup or fraud.  What possible power
could a fraudulantly elected leader gain?  We would all just ignore such a
person anyway since following is just a voluntary as leading.

Now I'm the one getting complicated.  :^0

If Jiva wants to step down, fine.  He has done alot.  We really thank him.
Let's pick a new chair-person and keep going.  No reason to get all geeky,
well, at least not in the organization.

Alan

At 01:42 PM 9/27/01 -0700, you wrote:
>On Sep 24,  7:32am, Digital Wokan wrote:
>
>Am I the only one who thinks this is getting way too complicated?
>
>I really don't think we need to make a distinction between voting /
>non-voting members.  (Anyone can vote!)
>
>I also don't think that we need GPG (or the like) signed ballots for
>voting.  I really don't think we'll have problems with voter fraud in
>a PLUG election.  (And, if we do, then I'll need to seriously rethink
>whether I want to be a member.)
>
>Kevin
>________________________________________________
>See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
>
>PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
>http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
>